Loading...
CR 07/11/2017Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: Representing/Petitioner: Address: YA Sl�s�r Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS —.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Ivu �)'� .2& Name: MAddress: - H(jos 16 Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS -.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda g ge da Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: ✓1 ' l Zo 17 Name: �A J Q. Address: Representing/Petitioner: ��^ 0 �/� Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS —.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No._� Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: Representing/Petitioner COLLIER C, SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: (( 17,0) Name: 4e Address: Representing/Petitioner: -� o enc ��-O 2-o8 1� Other: '(&, r-�' '3to0--�- COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic g g p (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Za Name: Jd -� Address: Representing/Petitioner: T !�'0 'E cl, ��-c� Zoe, ill�ple r; F� .3 q i o � (-e- Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) MEETING DATE AGENDA ITEM TITLE NAME Kathleen Robbins Representing/ Petitioner: Agenda Item # C'6/ A_ � (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget ADDRESS 10525 Gulf Shore Dr #231, Naples, 34108 Other?vanderbilt Bch Residents Assn. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOU COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PRIOR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD Agenda Item No.� Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: �l Name: /V��� Address: Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINMCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY �6ff Agenda Item No. �'-14 Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: /-4 64t- Address: Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS -PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY / IJP T �i Agenda Item No. 13 1- Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: 622 / 7 Name: 2,w Address: Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. V= Agenda Item Topic / (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: �(��� ,? Name: Address: t oy ( "c> q- Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. �_ ��k PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: n -d aJL ►i n r Address: Yqf if &'nUakA_ 3 qI o t Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS -.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY �� Agenda Item No. OA/ Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: / Name: �Ul fid% Address: 11,53� ��/�% / % , l� Representing/Petitioner:— P12 1 Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS —.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Item No. A Item To -C 2�y-v Agenda to � Agenda is p (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: /�� Address: Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS —.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Age Meetinc Name: Repre: ��COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. 34 Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: -71t I h —7 Name: , J-T114E STEc`INLL ReDresentinq/Petitioner: L o ocz c Address: S-& 2,D 9-&-c-4 cwt Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Y19 Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: �����' . G'� /' Address: Representing/Petitioner: y Z/, ��� C� err 4 Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topics (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: 7111 17 Name: �o u► s e DG A2 s' C o Address: JU A P t -r s FL 34110 Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS -PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. . Agenda Item Topic Qocc> j -T -7e -4e k3aY -'5C-� « MST (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: - ( /17 Name: -0e- C.3 © 0J> Address: /vA A iN s'4 IL PL Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. g Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: v ; / Name: 96, z A Q f - f; Address: Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE N0.2003-53, AS AMENDED BYbRDINA46E 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING 4 - THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic z 119 - (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: 1 L d Name: U f Address: Representing/Petitioner: G• '4 r, 6 y GLS �.feD-v- Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS -.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: � Address: 9, / Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. Pt_ PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No._.kt Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name:_ "I Nc Address:_ 1{- S Iq Representing/Petitioner:_ r► Q ( r In A/ Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAT PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISI R THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. NG PLAC E COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS —PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY if Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date:Lf / ��r � Nam J Address: Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS —PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY (� Agenda Item No.. Agenda Item em Topic '` (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: �1 � � � � � " Name:: c� 1 Address:<,"�� Representing/Petitioner: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE N0.2003-53, Other: AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRESTHAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED T0, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSBOARD AT THE BOARD R YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (S) MINUTES FOR YOUR MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT �� EGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE IN PODIUM. SING PLACE COMPLETED FORM M. ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. '?14 Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: '7/ / % 004,F Name: 3/evoi�Ly Sm t M Address: `72.7 e' 14coeAj L) 4 -PCF. ' Representing/Petitioner: 6 l" W--3 Other: 2b9C�< &4A, to dgj , COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS -.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY N 0 $vo� Agenda Item No. Agenda Item m Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: 2o I -� Name: �� �� ddress: Representing/Petitioner:C� IL��! COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE N0.2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 200 - AND 2007-24, REQUIRES ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGI S THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR LBOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT �' REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION PROMOTIONWNT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING ~ WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEA 'i SE PRINT CLEARLY v Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic -g4- (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: 7A /k I i Name:_ 9. 44e, _.r Address: 'L2 Representing/Petitioner: tt)Ot-F 6e#C_F_4e_ -t'vb Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No.— Meeting Date: 7 1 /` �) -�- Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) 7t Representing/Petitioner: l COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE N0.2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 20 Other: ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER 4 05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE ($) MINUTES FOR YOUR MINUTESBOARD AT THE BOARD AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT S), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE � COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SE PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENG AGE LF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE I ADVERTISING PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE ODIUM. TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS —PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. • g Agenda Item Topic 1 ( For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: -L�—L_� I Address: Representing/Petitioner:irl __� t COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE N0.2003-53, Other: AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT TO THE YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE T PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERSO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BEA KEDTO LOEAVE THE PODIUM. ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY U, %I Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: D Address: 5 r} Representing/Petitioner: �/n %/� kks 1 �,� "W Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 200405 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS -.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. 2 Agenda Item To'n'ic i Meeting Date: (For Public Comment, list topic) t� : � l Name: I! Address: 7 Representing/Petitioner: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE Other: ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED T0, ADDRESSING 2004 05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS) REGISTER WITH THE CLE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ATO THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR 0 ONLY THE CHAIR THE" FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BEA KED 0 LOENGAGE IN I EAVE THE PODIUM. SING PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS —PLEASE PRINT C UM. LEARLY Agenda Item No. !o-,.+ Agenda Item Topic 5e,%,ar CI, (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: ? Name: IN &MP � Address: ��d- F (2, ✓�°y Lw K. Rep resenting/Petitioner: i!5�'i ­ d k J Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT,CLEARLY w oo Agenda Item No. 4,, 1,� Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: 7 (O (--� Name:�0-"(`r�4 Address: a Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No.—i Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: w Name:I S Representing/Petitioner: '/lt /2,6/ -7 R. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 206-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 200405 Aq 2007.24, REQUIRES THAT ALL L BBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS -.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY V /r Agenda Item No. W—h Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: L I W --i gpI Name: *A)l I �11) 01q I- Address: Representing/Petitioner:2d.e Y a �) Ca 1 Kd 00 �A)nq Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007 , R UIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF-PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF-PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PR VT CLEARLY �' k�Qvv Agenda Item No. Jb� Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: Z� n r1C? f►- 221 Address: r-/'�r,j Representing/Petitioner: 5�' Y , �� , i i � r -q ri'I p2 j.' ther: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. ) � �A Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: (` i 7 Name: D;L'k C,'elf Representing/Petitioner: Address: 10 J- L �� Av' ,� ti',L� �'-� > y/ a .L - ksc re -v-- Oth COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. ,� Agenda Item Topic �- Y i , �.� ( )--1; rte g g e (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: -7 1/17 Name: � 1 �� Ke- it pv Address: � � � S*jC t�vC � �(,1.,�.-C;,� 3 cfco.� Representing/Petitioner: A u \J' Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. A enda Item Topic C l� Ag g (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: 7/1( / ( if —.0 n Name: Representing/Petitioner: Address: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION, PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) b�p��t Mllar�c�e Meeting Date: �^ —n Name:A d' Address: Representing /Petitioner: Other COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBY' T SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF CO TY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO POLITRUM FOR ICKING OR OTHER FORMS OFIOELFPPROMOTOON WILL BE ASKED TN. UBLIC CMMENT SPEAKERS OLEAVE VTHE PODIUM.ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POT PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. A Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: -7-tl- �1 Name: � �`�� 'rn Address: I � 9 Representing/Petitioner: (3nsc PL �Wv� Other: 0 COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. ti's Agenda Item Topic g(For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: / 1 ` I Name: 3e:L'� ��C_�' Address: Re resenting/Petitioner: 1.�� � t\j C�C'F: Other: Representing/Petitioner: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDIN004-E BOARD OF COUNTY ICOMMHSSIONERS), REGISTER STER WITH TORE CLERK TO HE AND 2007 ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING TH BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF-PROMOTION.SELF-PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO AVE THE POD UM ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OFY PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARL Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date• �7- i— — ` ` 1 Address: �/ Name: -._&_L_ l n t• /Petitioner• A ��ynle& Other: Represen ing COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM I3ELF-PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO WHO LEAVETHE PODIUM. ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: 7 — 1 / r Name: CCL,-( leae'W Address: Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. /1 Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) - Meeting Date: 7 f t l/ f Representing/Petitioner: e c� r�i /tea rens: Pall Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS -.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: _ I % ` Name: 14- Y ti I Lf Address: on resenting/Petitioner: GALLo.S I L- o ..5'Tm-r '2-5 e ) Other: p COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: Address: Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT ISNOT INTENDED TO BE A POLITICKING FORUM OR 0TH R FORMS OFIOELFPPROMOTOON WILL BE ASKED TN. UBLIC CMMENT SPEAKERS OLEAVE VTHE ODDUM.ENGAGE IN RTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL PO PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No.Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: SA -(l .lea I �U Address: 0010 i 9 l' ` k;t Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE KIORUM FOR OR OTHER FORMS OFION. UBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS ELFPPROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO ENGAGE IN AVE THE PODIUM.ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. A Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Jy` i I h Address: Representing/Petitioner: Cvn4tn,?L , N,,-, Other: j-er, s l-� 1 I Z COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANC N0.2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic 9 g p (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: ll Name: or4AfA 4t I Address: b 10i Representing/Petitioner: S/F Other: P-6 COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. <<- 4` Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: -I �_ l ` C —7 pb pv� cy&-Sc� r Name: N G` l��S9� Address ReP resenting/Petitioner: 4 Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY l(A' Agenda Item No. It Meeting Date: Name: 0 / % (:"" PA I I, KI Topic Item To Agenda p (For Public Comment, list topic) 541, ress: Other: Representingn-einioner: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE N0.2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF-PROMOTION.PUBLIC COMMENT N WILL BE ASKED OHLOEAVE THE ENGAGE IN AD MRTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS 0 Y PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARL Topic Agenda Item No. Agenda Item To g g P (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date : 7-11,113 MAN'i Name: fl Address: Representing/Petitioner: Other: i r�cl��e 0 � N& i � �W)o COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY IV Agenda Item No. I I A. Meeting Date: Ag enda Item Topic KM (For Public Comment, list topic) Name: J��-P ��� l� Address: Representing/Petitioner: -e-1 'R 1 � S ,()16x �- v 2.0 ' �-) Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. I (, Agenda Item Topic�� (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: v l (� U Name: �p Address: Re presenting/Petitioner: �� J40 2-0,? 0 C) Other: FL 3q/D� t - COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. I�� A �c Agenda Item To pioppCA Lika fo�� g g P (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: � In ko-v � Name: Address: Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE N0.2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No.11 h Agenda Item Topic 8 (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: " I 1 Narne: Address: a- �S';_ YAt 1, P-v� LAt tom_ Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: V �-c / , 7 Name: e, & a�� Address: Representing/Petitioner: dire APs ri.� ther: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-0 D 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. 11 Agenda Item Topic ! (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: 0— ed r ✓ Name: At-ALI �0 R� o� _Address: / a 9 RaO RIAI 6SPW)OK-� R -HCl,, A)l'�S; 3 iuS n , n d ( D' /I .✓l A . LLL— Representing/Petitioner: 1L Representing/Petitioner: 'r l e--�---ether: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. N Meeting Date:; -7 P Representing/Petitioner: Agenda Item Topic �1- (For Public Comment, list topic) C) Address: 3, . 1'�q Ln , %"�. � / o I V* /6 �'94"Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. c Agenda Item Topic P/ -00-1_/A-"; �—.4:24 r e�_ f c s (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: % " 1 1 " / Name: S K z, 1-k Sic )c - s u n Address: 3 2 g q 7-0-,A^:4-,'% -r9. S f -e 2 I a Rep resenting/Petitioner:A.PF/-,P- �-�-�-�"• v -e 4yroli Don'-" Id 5 Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. Ilk Agenda Item Topic F (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: 17 7 Name: VII r k G 1ka .�; i� G- � __Address: W TPI Ti�►��. � �� `/ � � +t �o � Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY (IA. Agenda Item No. Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: -7 t Name: C kT t') Address: 3 Representing/Petitioner: C'Nlres '-�d Avr -I ct � oV-L X�- Lf J2D COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. I I A Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date:Lx1v it,_11�) - 2 Name: �(,ll� eld'A_k' Address: , Rep resenting/Petitioner: cce4e -i=5aV S ( Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY 4e Agenda Item No. �� Agenda Item Topic g (For Public Comment, list topic) Name: Meeting Date: � � I,Z � V oAddress: F C' ':B G -C ��ozdg l�cl �Ss uo- Other: Representing/Petitioner. AT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004 05 AN RD OF COUNTY 2007-24, ICOMMIRES iSSIONER ), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOA BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT ISNOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF-PROMOTION.SELF-PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO THE PODIDUMRTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. 1 I Agenda Item Topic g (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: T Name: Address. TO-Q0k I �=) Other: Fe-, 3 q / o:7 - Representing/eoner. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE N0.2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05COUNTYREQUIRES COMMHSSIONER ), REGISTER WITH TORE CLERK TO THE RE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FORISOELF-PROMOTICOMMENT ON WILL BE ASKED TO THE PODIDUMRTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. 1 r 8 Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: &P t? LIT —f_7v_-v rz Address: Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY r� i Agenda Item No. ; i C_ Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: S Address: Representing/Petitioner: __ r D r.1 JCI n/ r� -'��•. Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS —,PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No.jL. C Agenda g tem Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: 7-11— / 7 /�fY J PON, s Name: ful Addr eSS: !JD d Representing/Petitioner:/ //ate; COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE N0.2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24 REQUIRES QUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO E THE IN ADVERTISING PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON T HE PODIUM. HE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. I - L Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: Name: I" I; Q �� Address: -71 .. Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS —.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. i i - Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: -/(A / I I Name:i� 111 Address: 10,(6 Myo Representing/Petitioner: 0_9_'; ti's v'k Dr C20 Other: /t.'g 1�e COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS -.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY W Agenda Item No. (L Agenda Item Topic j, C_' (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: I i (:2 -e— 6 LA Name:_ Address: ( P1 Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS - PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. // c, Agenda Item Topic (For Public Comment, list topic) Meeting Date: /— // — a D / Name: VEO214 L , r 7-Zc_' Address: Representing/Petitioner: 7 ct� 'f� �s '-, jv'e e a COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT OF THE DAIS —.PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Agenda Item No. � l C Agenda ' g g da Item Topic Meeting Date: ( (For Public Comment, list topic) ./- �� Name: f� til �,� E 1�-s Address:_A_'lti� Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-531 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIST SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORUM FOR SELF -PROMOTION. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS WHO ENGAGE IN ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESS, PERSONAL POLITICKING OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF -PROMOTION WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PODIUM. PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE TO THE LEFT— OF THE DAIS PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY ��� CD fa) 2 a a CO v `D CD -< CD n ort `� ID 0 _ 0 13 m m '- ocp _ = f CD D — 0Wr • "a7 C) Wm � � � = v m cn � rnJ0 - - z C7 zEn m u rnoc 0 O mz D pmz cn 00 —1 z Z .. "o O r� m mz ° 26 0 Oz o xim moZ Z A fl O Oo0 c m -‹ z 2 = m Z = --G oW -1 pm C = zQ =-1-11 = c m6.-“,) Q o n � � � « C ' = 0 =i m 5' _� W x m - om 0 C7 cp m m _< - oC OC moo?. N _ o 0 0 - D z 0 O M oo O o6) z o m mz �mz � - -0c m = gym O 13 CO Z mOo oO off - (n Dr _ = OO D 73 - vii M o � z o -Ia tr1 :i/ D � mD z00(A � 2 D 8o O xi Fri c) r cn O o m 77 Z C) -IUm CD' D 0z -e M o _3 D OOm ?!� � m O P = U, ym 17l cnm = 7, = < z CO oWD -I M (n mO -i r mm Z - o O 70r � r— m pz Oor- -< mm = c o cn C) -< z = O D M 73 CDZ CD D -a 3CO CD C,, CO O CD -< v M cCCD `oci m O . co F: CD , nW n -t- 0 2 D0-D = mo rO -. --f--1 CD D = �Wm o nWm � r- rn „= � _� o Z 0 mz cmoZ `' ~- E cno -1 zz � .41 O -I 0 mo S m rr- � -1 � Lm 0 0 z m Ozz -n DD m U5Dm 077 OQ � rZ r o M =1m E * pDON )011 0 nD =I E63 CO z � m Z -< GO CD 1 0m — = Zc�i Q = Oc m mDD Q. o o M = � (/) � 0cn m -o m CD m � > fn a-I II Do Cl) 1- _m u)� 2 OFri- 0c CD -1 00Jo 0 = zo O J:' 0 C mph CD —I- (/) 2 co V• rn 00 n DJzo .. O r u) o 0 o0z 0 c m Pz M IIooz 13 -n T � c � -1 -0 =-o = gym n 0 = W Z mzoo T n WO r o =- 00 )> 7DoRa m Oz k- Z c m z 7 D D l o ci C n z D Cpo O C 1 on cn 2 m D � = D m _ D D? n < m cnz •0 om = D m � D = moo o � 0 0z � M o 0 00 -u t C— -0 r = 2 6 -ICn Z < Z Cn 0OvD 4 C —1 m � m cn o -1 ) �, r- mm 0 Eloy �. _ Z D oz _< K0 ,-1-, 73 oo _..1 = c� omo - � II rn Z V- -I C 0 -< z 2 o D 33 -P 0 z MDCD II) cD z0 -a fD CQ -< r CD P. ° CD rCO r m CDM c Co 0 6x, 0 z c- Sy z 0 m n -< .-F 13 ..� CD Dm 0 r ---Ii 0 70 O 3 mcz - mz ccp ozc„ m Z Z � Z D zm 5 cn O /- Z 0 -I O ) "- m - co r m Z CD iv r- - - --f mm = G) o b z XJ W M oo m �W -n � o m -I-> :7 00 W 000 > -,r- Co 0 --I � =Im E > rm O � m ZDc -41 CO -4 0m Coo fa_D v Si M = 0c m -1 -I -°° Q s =O T CJ) rnn- 0 n' O m 0 D m � OOoz Cl) = co = m 33 m m > -. r--f ITl r c cn Z �' cq CD Om n O m = 3 -p O z z rn O 0 C coo ai -I cnK � m -I -P C M -n -X 00i C) U' mo a° O r m0 in v73 m r. z 'S oyz .- -I -02 mm08 O op Zoo .9 _J -nK cj •--• o 0 N 5Y' -1 0 cncn0{' m -05mzm j D zK° DZ > -< 0c , ` 7) r- 0 C/70— DmOm O nm mrn -C/3rn z -1 r > m ccnn M rnm O Oy n D3:1 n mi-- (o _ W '0 m0 m m _-< P - --4 z < z Cl) Gcn fi-) 0 m .� C) _,_ o O m = a9 Ir- rnm Z m > D0 z r rr- xi oa :=I op r -< m _ = 0 _ I 177 m m (7) C) 0m 0 > = 0 clj g 33 -I 0 , 0 z _ � m z b� II CD 0) 2 D 73 3 ;:... CO Ci; `D D c0 CD v E. D cn CO n m 0 rn r 73 O (1) P a '� CD D � � r 00 Ca rr o. t C7 Co m T �o 0 z (n ITI EDmOc �! Z Ornm -1 �m Gm) o .r 0 O Ill o m o D P CO z m m 0 z z '7l D 0 rn 5 z m 0 o0 C m � z r O M = m * W iv D o CO Z m Z = -< ow -1 L0 Do C = z w Q =n `v m c m Q. o m O � m n0D n oDD m o « Ccr oar = 0 _-1 m �' W o m 7) O rcTA 0 ' 0 m m m -< mo= o 3 CD O- ml 03 C m0 � ( 2 —I C � 73 0c0 `� = —1 M � � n � � o Q 0 0 z .. m-n ril-r� O M II co Z •• cam ■ M - ten C7 0 033 IQ' Z n' zi" -n � ne. 0 � 4 C N r o = O O 3> ii -- c, ♦ r p — • z - Z mz • P , D 1- z D c8o O C cn r � mho .-- r ! m 3 V r u) > z DJ 2 T .. M � m pmm • (n m Do i ow p mW �i �1 m 0 * p 00m D m rn m = ` , Z< z •(/) 0 co D : 011 m0 (n r O • r = m nDJ pp1- L t m p z r -9,D m p pD m � l P--- MX CT) M - rnc7) 0 -� 0 n 7 0) C D '0 3 CO Cl) •`Dc.0 CD CI O LI Q c C m - r D CO 70 o = c� u m 0O m O rF D L � r OoJm 74•. CD n co s � .±i77 2 3 m ccn -zi -1 � Oc> C') 2 US m u) m O Z cn m c -NI M g0 0 zzR V. r • 0 ✓ mz 0 33 > 00 T ,_ m- Oo 2 m0 ). (�1 D z m Gzz r- c P -n r 0 m -1 z m -n v) o p0 W m -< z rpo PrP M = m m * ,0-:), No O C7 D = co O CO Z � „ Z = -< ca -1 o i c ---1 w z 0. -:-C-1CD m0� m c n >n CL o ' = iii -0 CL Cr im O _� m ci' D rTiZ rF m DJ -- O � 0 O cp m „ —� o VI 2 - MI O m m C = z O � o � CO I— � O O m m 0 n> Z o a 0 -n M = gym —� 0. c rn O oW moo .i'. 5 /al 0 r 6 2 �- O n DJ E o� D z0 - Z omz a * m D z ° � co- r D o -1 m m p�7 r cCD cnnm z O >om33 rn n m m pp ( C/) o � D O mac mo D 2 0 = w 1 i M m m u m = < z V) OpoT - m 0 cn mO -I 0 = 0 O D D P r m m z 0p rr- Th*m Oz r � O mm o oo _1 _. nCO r -‹ m2 c72 m � � C n -< 2 2 O D 73 CD CO 2 D a co a.co `° CD CV c C CO CO _ � 1 -0 = 0 m 73 r- o ~. - J rD 5 �0 corn r— o_ m o �D X -2 " v cncZO o zOm 65z � - I 1 O z O pz '. —_, v Z M ozz TI r-- 0 rn U) > o O -0 -1 ^ mZz o0 03 coo � rO z � m Z = .< $=1- m * 0 r‘.., i > 0/� E o = --I 2 6, D \V _ �) c --1 m O ca Q a. m ri o � rn DD -1 00m - > ' u' c ", D —1 J rn aD P 0 g �` -I m " m4 Q p U) 3 O xi C m0 �o c --1 w � ao o = o =. —1 = 0 n � z0 (4 0 r (no O p O z ( - .� m mz >`ccr D 1 - � C m \/ "T1 0O --1 oo2 T -1 O CO > r Z -, D tzP � m ® zoo .s / f/9 � � mho r >nD P—1 Zg` N O p 77 m m D mj:j jj v' O fn pcn D mac m o * D 0G) '0 mO p = Cn ' XI Dm rn gym = Z < z cn p M p -Di r m0 O > 5-3r Z p r D oz r ,9 Or Di m z -1 CT) C) -< z = o n a0 )--- o v) CD fl) C 3 g_41 CO Cl `D CO CD O _ v 5 4� mO. co C D cn COcQ r m 0 m D 0 "" MP' M . 3 K r 003m O• ncorn E � -mnpi = a n7 w-1 -i O c� , Z oz cn m F m c0 no, ,�.-- M w0 ® zzz -- A____ li � -zi O � � o J _ I7 Oz � m � y ID z � m ozz -n rED m Cn > 0 o -0 -I ^ mzz O 03 =Ir- ro - r0 z -n Z = -< w CO z p C -1 z U, D m = OC -1 = , ,,, a. rn 0 � m ,--c) c-) O. o f n -1 7 o < � Cl) _ ,° O = m X' _® W D, m m 0 -1 m -np n -G m �o v O m z co g B o O C nor- - I -I Cn p p M cn5 O 002 Z ^'73 O ,1 r- z 'S --1-I Cp z `-. -. —. -�-1 � � _ _11m 7' n c m 0 oW z Woo -1 0o cn > ro ' 0A' DO cri m 0 z 0 =1 > rib,. ivy � mz n * m v 2 0 0 FZ > c -1N \ V - co r -1 --1 0 0 vo Cn xi m_ I m � m Cnpnc,, ct m I- m pp (n co _c ` D m - R1 O * v 0055 I v 33 ym m Cnm = < z 0C17D --1 -m-I D (n -mop --1 0 mm O D7n0r I- m m Z DJ O r my pz r mOo m m - n a DJ m zco� c-7) C7 -< t 0 > XI zw o CC zw = z Z V U H = W W = cr O = oc w _i J o Q ¢ _ ,-- ¢ I=- V cn 0 ) Z > Z me W ww _ at Ocn Op a _I _ Ci � � W Jz Q a"cn co w Cr _ LU Lij ¢ U) Q < cn J L = C) I— r- w 'Q d orD D ~ mow W cnm 1 ® o = � � a z � V9 w a ca 6. LuzwZ � z Irp p Q p O = C N O 0( n 0 p I__ 0 0 0 Z m O 0 U W � W ■� 0 N Q � J LL CL•—• ZOOM -. Lu W O .= ,Q m ¢ Q O co J o owu) 0 0 0 W = O y Np > > O � I— tz ♦ rco cc Lo E zCC = � al J "D 2 OOw V- Op w m � �uj w � o = 1— CD o Q wwL ¢ = CC H 1 I— I-1- 2 Z WJQM un I3. ¢ om c; mo ti] g W o ,---I LJ.. J I- W W CI M _ CI O W o z _ 1--- U W �1 0 W ■ zo O z � J U O � -' 0 oz o � z o Z `) c z � wm U Ect O CD ui R JOOcc w = a. . P as >- ¢ I- IsmEn 1:1-as • O) >z Q U -a °' 'a vo m C 0 C W co O _I w E m o z z ~ CD = y 4- < — --_, zw = z Z Lu W . pEjj 0 w O V CC W W H C ' ct z W 2w Z Cw3O V ' U) H >- w w w ¢ z m cc 0 J CC O � Q � 0 W J Z < OC w Cl) W Q Q w Y W n ♦ Q cn ® Q < -J L-+-> R IZ- cnE uj CLm a w W J O O Q w J a 1 wzLi- Z Z W v N00 Co o0 J- O a' I- oOLL 0Z w � 0 cvow W 0- '-.- imams p CC CC J LL_ zOpm zw W O Wim ¢ ® 0 J �' NOS = 0 � I-- a) 0Q wzz0 a_ cc 0 _ U � L_ w Z w J W .�� z CC - W J o 0 < 0 = m CU c0 (Nn CC 0O I-- uri Ira i 0 p w t!) cc -a x LU mI- F- itt.W 0 = o Q w � Q = 00Y Z 0)!-J--- z ¢ - < 0 O Q Lii< O m c9 co o o cc rco z �O o- t_ 1- WW ¢ W ( CC O W m z CD = LuW H c.., E I'— z w W Qom o - o- -. ■ ^\ C( :))) z0 I- ~Oc O l� w ® zw p � z -- _ a) E. 1--- zD w EF= _m wm V a) c\-, 1.= 0 ~ - Oz a (� a 1 Q cc 0 F- 1 )RS Dz Q o a) W0 O a) J E - 0 zz Q m 0 a E M z CC _zw O H z_ 0 O CC a ZW = Z C.-.) ' W J U \) U 1,.. o= W W cc _� O = = W >- CO‘irLU H 1 "' Q E CC § J z a_ W WSW- ® 0 = V �- W Cn 0 w 1- � } w Cn LLI w ¢ Z 0 m O CrC-1‘ .� WC --' uO O wJa "�• Jz w cc CC Q (Z < 0 ® YY Ili W w w 05 W a I 6Q 0 _ OQ w Q co wzwZ OZ w N cccp co° ' C - z0tn -° I -cpUN C cc 1" d--- o O OZ 0 cc cc C __I cc O ■... Q0w0z Oci) -1 QQ 'o ¢ -1-7 LL. wownC.) OO= CD N �" z _ � Oc lp' vz ® LL01w Hc Jo= w w.m1 c Jo0 1 0 = Q orq V Cl) o= Qm W 00 F,- 0i (( C) 0 W tor) u_ = a. l� m01- F_ = OCC k--J = ,� CD 8 a wLU� Q = 0 Z J o - o Z LI- �� z � cc < 0 O w J 0 W co J m O m M 0 0 Cr O Q = W 1- -1 nm W Wz Ca j- (4_, ,,,,) `Y' . z O W oz = W � F- cv 1--. Z W J O �J z U 1"' co O (� Uz D w O ZA -- cq z Z W U Iii zi= F- wco O o ccc > - = Q w = O I- J w J 4..r �� >- ¢ W 00 H a. — z Q C o a w 0 O o_ w` co z-J J C) M E U0 ¢ ICC CC pCQ c� = z_ CI) CD D F- z W cc moz021 u._ Lij � - cc J 0 Z w w J ' F- Ow V) Ow \ Q m 0 cn z > Z = m W ww Li- 2 � � 2 � a wzop � 0 W � cn opo Q w � Q LLJ wcc zwo O YCY J � N o � W Li-, w � � Qw mm Q Q Z J I:: zw Ill zCI QF- 0in cc z � o w t. cij t'' ,2 cp F- 4. I- m H � p Q w � = W m � O V �_ UES ~ M e_ 0_ U- ■0-2 a Q (� o Otn J O z O O ~ " w ( co � >- 0 Li, O 5- 0 O a --I- Jw W m olo U z w 0- CC cn w LU CC m im. 0 w ~ Y LuCC O OI=- Q fn Ft > co 73 u) U w ~ L ¢ QU W - O W _ tic2 V Q � ZLjj I = 0z I-- } = Z wY z c" O § M w ~ m 414 CD J O r wO m O 0 < u) W oQ U- zzC� W wz p v oz °C = w H QJ QI-�. z � JoOzz P- � O o � M 0 zwz O Z w < pcn z VW OI - z � W www M wm U p wm0 SCC Q J JC) J W J a) •1NOWOd U Q UaUQ CU 73) C °' O d C 0 CD N co a) N C) a M E CC / cc r = - Q z i F- z w cc • co = W >- >- >>- I_ mn J N.) �mUzF- ¢ - CC u- W 0Q lOJ zW j0 ' Z WW J O V I... I- O w u) � W F- ¢ mo co z > Z (,� coi- CC OzW �--_ a. = 00 0 O W zui o o cl) 0u) W Q ccW Q ♦ W W Y W � LL0 O � .� i C ~ Q LIJ.� ti ¢ w W co Co a (� ,_. o h I- J (J) �1 ® 1 Q z =1 Q Oz wW ® Z IN ¢ F- p Z � O W !V isW a 0 _ o - Q UF-O 1- �' J (n oF- m I- J0 u- COW Z W 0 WF- W aW F- C� U M u:- u- ■Qo zoo LT] W O O `n J F= u_ W I._. - PO ODOO cc p � F- E E t-}-1 m = O °W- 0 O oz u_ u_ a) o w a' 0 w CC J 4 O \- zwI- _ cnW m I . 0 W I_- Y 0 p = a co a � w 11 � o I— CU g a ¢ ¢ v U) xW � 0 W a Q L Z I- 0 YZ F-- CD o Z Z � m0 - W I= M QCO 4� J 0 EL0 0 `Y z >- w CZA o < c~n W p ¢ LL �-- < zw CC 90 W `� 0 Qzlr = w � F- Q . P o ¢ � F- z � U W ® I- a. zw0 ~ zW 0 vi m 0 _ 0 W cn W CD z V Z mss-: OUp •- F_ ze W �.j c Ww m Wm V E V} O Wm0 mac Q Q U J w J O = a — , / f c= Q U "CS t: IE. = m O a- C o a) >-' C N Q) 01 if, E Q Q 5 Z a CC 'Act= z_ U 0 c- z W cC � � = w >- ` Ni) >- � Oca u w za0. w JmE Z wu, J < < < O 0 = U CI- ¢ mom C/) z > Z = W uiQ 4.0 ("1 i- CC occ CD 0 elz -1 a gik � � cc Q ww W CC 4111. LU Li j m O Y cn J Rs.: d:O < I- w ¢ 0- .� „N-- < w W cC mCL m I 6,0 p oo22 a zJ zwM Z ztAz 0 I ¢ I_ 0 O W ` L ¢ cn Q OO H ( ti LL " ZU—I Z = CC O P + w W a. Cl- 1- .� .o m c ¢ c r-, _ 0. : `� zzEil J ® y W O0 Imm 0 J m = O u1 1"- m z w o C O L- D J LL' w CD 0 - 0U) 0 y. 111 CC J — o zw �' _ � w m imm 0 ( ,, w � Y O rst=-- a CO co 0 < � w I J� 0 0 1— ¢ ¢ U LU � O cc W A co5—_ = z LL2 O oO � M wt= M QCO J zrw :� 00 0 "� i CC 0 <¢ c) W oQ LI- zzc� W oz Qz _ = Inco H --- ) - 0 < CC 0 - a- m c6 • z w J mi `� zwo F- zw 0 0 j w cn LLu cn z V Z �� � 00 . H z � w ttt��4 c ccw � Lunn O p Lu ca mac a a) .r � �0 J � w J NIM. I�- .. occ O I 0..=IMIIII a a RS a 171 c 00 Vre c O 0- C o a> >- a) c' a) cn a) Q M z o Zw a w Z = F..-6 o 0 CC Y Q Z W J = CJ) .sLU U ccW = W O= ,' Q U_ h— Q = J m H >" ZO Q ___T .J a W F- Z>z WWw ¢\ } c J Q. CO u� 0 O W J [c O Q ILLI cn J cn = F. J UJ) N.1 cc0cc W § Q ' ; l is 0zwZ � p W O — q) p O O Zcc //V�+ \ Q Q P G d. u Elj W •— ¢ O ° GG ZO J O•^ Q m O 0 •� owcn0 00 = N v N C� _ cc CC O Lu LU_ O ~ y' J W d `� Zuio LU CC J cu gzccc¢ = CO = CO -E'r E o O cc ® 0 iii , ccQm W u_ 1a- CO C)o i 0 Li= W - 0 = E. "1:3 o 0 I– w ¢ � Oz Z CD L ~ z ¢ U O Q ~O 0 Sa m0 2 0 v cn Z i-- J LI- cci� W oz Ll � m DO H o = w CO `tel oZ 1- zw O � O ~I– o U' • ` y 0z W � z0 ¢ w F- zD Z L. W o 0 � o =cc itt a a-+ a � ¢ 0 � iii 54 = z Q m CU a OU m = S CC CI71 ceL m0 1B. • Wo 0 cn J o cy) • 0) E 0 oas 0 ¢ Q n z cc zw 0 1=- Z /1 _ O � 0 cc cit z I w w V in f - LU U ww4 = 1-- U J z a_ W O LlicD z0-11 = w O I ~ W CO 0w Z C c� CI) ww ¢ m cc w O w 0 O w o � o � p w J w O Q cc fa QC QC < °Z w Y W ¢ O ¢ c) —1 A n _ g F-- w ¢L.Li D; O =8 < w - Q 01- wZ p W 1v O co cn 0 O I- cc „Li- Pe- cC oOoz � R W W LJJ cccmzLL. !J- o oo. Qo Lu -C- o' mw ¢r, Ooo =0 . =or- SCC0nHo =oon = ccOy OL"'E .r 0 up LL 0_ 0 CTS V N � ¢ mo 0o F- v n.. A--� >. p W � p = 13 tis m H cc O H a a ow ¢ . Oz Z L I__ 1-..t ¢ U O 01 -j-..-- uu ¢ wM Q m �JJ ci_ cCO'^ cnZ F- 0.; Wo � u. zz C] '" co cc z o 1111 \_1_ o Z f=" Fw- Liu W 0 7-7 Z J 0 °J !� wz W zw O U — cn Z Z cJ < �' ¢ ill f-- Z w O 0ETD 0 J , w —1 _a) � ¢0 Lu o � a 4-1 azZ a � � z m as o m 0 '0 C CD= Wo 0 u) J 0 _ 0 a_ o z Q m z CC cc 4"*". --i )...i I4 Q z ,._), ircV I-- D ww >- 1.._. p =m0z J aO W < Dm Z 0m U V < O Cl) z > Z `ani �N = _ � co Ww E r (t 1� co F- Et CC z 0- Li Li BOO o ow z0 p (nF- cn acn = W Q � W .tpCC cc ¢ I"'" w ¢ °- �\ t N- CO LIU P/5181 I i co 4 O N � � Q z � Q ZWW � ® � z cl Z WV ¢ I_ p OO Lo oD- ¢ O I - omJ ILI- - �— C`11"-- N z W Z CO O W = W a n- I. 0 D S ' M LL LL ■� 'g. Q m Q z W wQp� _"- z00 O Ocn J r�C) i= u_ til d i = Opp - W wz = OSO F- r.,9 --I-- '.. J w W F-zu' wwm--+ v - O O = QtCn w > O I— < Uw �I u cnU w m W.a o 13 Ci } ~ OwF Z 0) mct o Z � m0 _ W '= M Q m � CC z >- W Ocl_ co �= P 0 < n W o ¢ LL \ � zzc5 W oz O L1 Q z = = W �`3 ' CC O ¢ CO w 1— zm J w 0 D.. • O u aw0 ® zw O Z _ ..J pwcn W cnz 0 �j Op - I-- z � u.l C c wm U Epwm0 hoc Q .-+ J J0 -.J 00 = _j CL V/ 1- a0 0 i- _ cc U= ` coaJCi)CU = m 1.0C 0 ›.- a- C o a >' CD CD a) D) E a. Q 2 z ac / zw O 1- Z < a z zn- w w = w _, 0 2 ii, 0 F. Q o = = w � >- w f- H - J CC .-j" Com �. ¢ 0 z O Q J W Z in UJ J c=n � ® ¢ tz- V CI) - a) z > Z_ w w �¢ o & 0 � O a -ICC ® u) F- W (.__-. � z 11::( o Q 11) w� OJQ �w F- izs = � ~ IA W ICD 1- w gm w 0 2 CC H. J C/) 1 bqCI I- wZ � z 1-1 ic) IA ` V CCC l' J8 LL I O O O Z mCC ° �wU.V0.-- mocM oQwzoM „ , -j.� mOnQ� ¢ z0 O o = w V 0o z CD 1-- Ocn I-- m NC30 � CC cc O wzZO .97 O F- ii) E P-- z w 0 - w CC J T. wcc u) w 00 v' m ¢ mcc = ct ® Oo r _ o m w '3 .5 -0 mO = W O = a� Q mww ¢ = Oz Z CD o C] ~ 0 Z w 02 �� zcC ¢ v O w = ¢ � LU _,I= M Q1- O .••••••• m .J CC In U) z �% Foes O F- W 0 2 LL L9 co cc 0 O W _ CD CD Z c\I — F— z w J LLJ 0 .. zz W cnz C.)w1"- S W o of J 2W J o � �'0) c o a ¢ w>-� zQa CUco mco Do O C o G) w O >- G) C au m ”. E Q. � a Q m z CC Cr = z 0 I-- z W CCC 57 (4 > � J rn � 0 � J z � W J c) J Z w w O = 0 FAL = mo Cl) i-- 0j Z wCn LU ' C O= � a g% V 1 O co cc 'a = w a Ai CE CC L11 w z o ¢ Q J 2. cp• Nom W nw. w �' O cv D a ZLLI - z0w � f•-% z CIO Q` QILo _ 0 Z � 0 W L r', � � ¢cc a O0 I— t‘ c)'71- I— 1--' � u■ CrN U w Z m °C O ` 1 (• Lu c).1 W Ra' 1_, O y X ozccc 0 0 � w Cs.) A cc b <7 ozJ 0 CC cc 0 a) w �V o D O w = J ommi cUi wF- ~ cow m (� c(/) + <C 17-7 ® Er 0O H V a i 1 / U) 0 j co cc W W O _ V co-C3 = I— cc0 F=- a) c:t A a) O m I LLE Z LL O a oo ^ CC O 4E, U Q W Q ¢ LL o ') ¢ zw W o = w O W Ez - = Iw = W = U � I— z— w J 0 < w 0 - a- a. ■ � zz I— 0w M O u zwo 0 zw 0 Z .. OCCcn W Cr) Z— O c UO2 WN z ? Ec = wM wm O wm0 SCC a W *-' JJU — w J O WO = a •11•11 F- d U Q = U as C/2 a, u) a m V _ 0 C o w o a) 2! Q m E CC Ex parte Items - Commissioner Penny Taylor COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Board of Zoning Appeals 8.A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Judith S. Palay and 92 other property owners within the Cocohatchee Bay Neighborhood Communities, filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the administrative approval of building separations, building widths, building dwelling units, and building heights in the Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA-PL20160002242 for Kalea Bay aka Kinsale Condominium Phases Il-VI. The subject property is located at the northwest and northeast corners of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South and Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170002165] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls Meetings: Met on Wednesday, February 22, 2017 with Judi Palay and Diane Rupnow and on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 met with Diane Rupnow, Pat Bonser, Carl and Marilyn Stendhal, Barb and Mike Taylor, Peggy Ross and from Glen Eden on the Lakes; Jim and Kitty Shaw from Tarpon Cove; and Lou De Prisco and Dick Wilson from Arbor Trace. Brad Schiffer and Donna Reed Caron. Emails: Judi Palay, Diane Rupnow, & other members of the Cocohatchee Bay community, various constituents from the above mentioned communities on Kalea Bay and various personnel at the County Calls: Received telephone calls from former staff members Correspondence: Received a letter from Donna Reed Caron dated July 3, 2017 OVeC • GrecoSherry From: Fred Schuman <fs@jndmech.com> retSent: Monday, July 10, 2017 1:07 PM e Al To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Josh Willard (Josh.willard@manhattanconstruction.com); Nate Farnsworth Subject: Re; Petitioned opposition of Kalea Bay Tower 2 permit application Attachments: To Collier County Commissioners.docx Dear sir and madam Please review the attached abbreviated summery documenting J&D Mechanical's historical Kalea Bay man power activity. Thank you in advance for your consideration during the opposition deliberation process. Thanks Fred R Schuman Cell 239.770.2828 Office 239.288.5834 Email link fs@Indmech.com President J&D Mechanical LLC. CMC 1249359 The information contained in this email message, including all attached documents, is intended only for the professional /personal and confidential use of the designated recipients named above and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately and delete it from his or her computer. J&D Mechanical LLC. 5021 Luckett Rd Fort Myers FL 33905 To: Collier County Commissioners. From:J&D Mechanical LLC. Re: Petitioned opposition of Kalea Bay Tower 2 permit application. AS the Mechanical Contractor for both Manhattan and CR Smith any opposition to permitting is Extremely Concerning for many reasons but our immediate concern is for our employees and their families. Below is data to illustrate the financial impact of not permitting Tower 2 on our small businesses employees, using Tower 1 as a benchmark given that tower 2 is very similar. Tower 2 activity for MEP trades was anticipated to begin on or about 12/1/17, listed are hours for J&D fulltime Kalea Bay field employees and our fabrication facility employees, whose times is also applied to Kalea activity's as shop, the applied hours stated are from our job costing data from 6/1/16 thru 5/31/17 to provide clear time line of 1 full year of activity for reference clarity. Please note that appropriate pay scale with full benefits including family health insurance applies to all full-time employees. • Over the 12-month time line above we posted 51,085 field applied hours or(25 full time employees) Tower 1. • Over the 12-month time line above we posted 13,637 shop applied hours or(7 full time employees)for pre fabrication, packaging and delivery from our fabrication facility to Tower 1. • Tower 1 alone employed 32 full time employees for referenced duration. Additional activity over the 12-month time line above we posted 21,873 hours, this time was applied to out-building facilities structures or additional(10 full time employees)for same referenced duration. Business office operations staff employed by J&D Mechanical to facilitate pre-construction planning through current activity for approximately 30 months to date, staff includes Management, project coordinator, estimators, cad-draftsmen, clerical and accounting. we have applied 3,500 business staff hours conservatively to date. Going forward activity for J&D Mechanicals service department upon completion of Tower 1 and out building facilities will include Service management, service technicians, dispatch and clerical for warranty repair service, 3 years contractually, 4,000 hours. Additional anticipated activity is preventative maintenance, this will employ minimally 1-2 full time employees initially to preform preventive maintenance tasks and none-warranty service to building 1 and it's 120 residences, common areas and out building facilities. Upon completion of Kalea Bay development the preventative maintenance and service tasks will employ 3-5 full time employees,potentially for the life of the structures. I hope that I have provide you with real world insight of how significantly Kalea tower 2 and this first-Class Development in its entirety is in supporting local small business as ours and their working-class families. J&D Mechanical is only 1 of hundreds of businesses this Development will financially impacts directly and/or indirectly today and for many years to come. Thank You Fred Schuman/President J&D Mechanical Nathen Farnsworth/Vice President J&D Mechanical GrecoSherry From: Nancy Farnsworth <nancy@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:38 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Attachments: 20170710151854.pdf Dear Commissioners: Please find attached signatures from 22 of our staff who work construction in Collier County and many who live in the county. Several have worked directly on the Kalea Bay project and are scheduled to work on the upcoming building 2. If the Kalea Bay Project is halted or delayed due to the protesters against this already approved building, we will have to lay people off. Please stand strong against those few part time residents who are against this project. Nana' Nancy P.Farnsworth Vice President Acres&Son Plumbing, Inc. Serca Management, LLC 239-597-5031 239-597-3740 fax 1 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala a(�colliergov.net AndySoliscolliergov.net BurtSaunders(a colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BilIMcDaniel(a colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincer'y, Signature Print Name Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(c�colliergov,net PennyTaylor a(7colliergov.net BiilMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincere rfy Signature Print Name 3—/O onTh Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala a(�colliergov.net AndySolis aC�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a colliergov.net PennyTaylorcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel(�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature L J c.+. en 1-I '7'E'S Print Name Address i,, 3 4,/,-7 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala aC�colliergov.net AndySolisna colliergov.net BurtSaundersna colliergov.net PennvTaylor(c�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, ./ A110 l On Signa e 16t Print Name BOOP LA) Address eaki rPc --/p6,s Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialana colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel a(�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely,Signature e/cmc //c rr2i lk-t Print Name ( 76! </S11 $ fi Address lloy1/-es Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov,net AndySoliscolliergov.net BurtSaundersCa colliergov.net PennyTaylor@collierdov.net BillMcDaniel colliergov,net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, t r) 'Ram.trtn— Signature Print Name kao Jd IC�� c-is Address Prig, Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis(c�colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor a(�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(c�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, -§41445 ikG/e5- 17k/e•X Print Name g OIC °2-7 Si- S 61 Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis(a colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a colliergov,net PennyTaylor(a�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(c�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against he opposition who are do not want this project built. in#1. Signayre ko puL5 Chck. iAick) Print Name 20.81 McLAv \\ kN) \\cI- Address (&)) 1 k Ck. kti \ . So I sH Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialana colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov,net BurtSaunders(a colliergov.net PennyTaylor ancolliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signat e Print Name t3o'-i 4f lei. r Address fe-v-tC" //ares f i '336)34 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(c�colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(c�colliergov.net PennyTaylor(u�col liergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, u Signature Print Name S)O t Ss-4-41 S 5 Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis(c�col liergov.net BurtSaunders(a colliergov.net PennyTaylorcoliiergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sin - -ly, nu. Sign., re - `r e S A c.c.CT G-6 Print Name 'fir r M. vv. 04-v E Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaacolliergov.net AndySolis@,colliergov.net BurtSaundersna colliergov,net ; PennyTaylor@,colliergov.net BillMcDanielcolliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerer i / ssisi %I/ice Signature 171/9 I P-fAx- S: Print Name 30 ( s7 Address 1 a c �� � lk .14 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala a�?colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylorcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov,net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. S i n 40r —--.._ Ir `'isnature ce7 /aniii s/ Print Name / /030 Address / vv•-\--C\ S r-`k by rL 3/3 ; Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis(c�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a,colliergov.net PennyTavlorc colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(c colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature r Print Name Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala©colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaundersCa�colliergov.net Pen nyTaylor(a�colliergov.net BitlMcDaniel(c�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. &(,\/ ty Si• - or/ 1) ir-e 2--6) fTk2iccJ Ad ress 1 fL4i( Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov,net AndySolisAcolliergov.net BurtSaunders(c�colliergov.net PennyTaylor ancolliergov.net BjllMcDaniel p(�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Since frir ure Prin I ame 07-6 441 11`16 Addres` Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 Don na Fiala(a�col liergov,net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders@a,colliergov.net Pen nyTaylorcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood andmy family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Si cerely, 115-Inat. e -11) n16761 Print Name VIOL M\11 Add, �Li �31 g- Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(@,colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders aC�colliergov.net PennyTaylorCc�colliergov.net BilLMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may .-rmitted buildingat Kalea Bay is not allowed to be adversely be affected i the already , bui Please stand fir against the opposition who are do not want this project built. ll I �`.eirely, 0 • 4ff : /i ir ii 1 to I i f) ' A 1' atureI/44We ��� 'tint Name A.dres-j ) Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala aC�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaundersc colliergov.net PennyTaylor@a,colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, / / ' .. J_ , ,c- Signature jr7" (--09i p 42_0 z orc�Zr Print ame //113 P wi1/srLe CoV C/7=7 Z Address JVgpLes ;, 31/113 I i Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala( colliergov.net AndySolis(a�col liergov.net BurtSaundersCc�colliergov.net PennyTaylor agcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel(c�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sinc ely, ,ehir ( / 4r,--- Signature Pedro MO 4ClIvo Print Name (0 01 cx( y i-ko 11 ou L V\ Address < 1 i I i Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala a(�colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunderscolliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a)colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Si cerely,., Sig. re 11 • Cs, 40 f--\ ,2101S0 Print Name 2. g 5-LOA dr s Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySglis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�colliergov,net PennyTavlor@colliergov.net BilIMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature Print Name v7 l -C-c..-Coltaftik a(- Address 5D,o, eAi / .S J�GG�✓ s czr¢ 31-/jar' GrecoSherry From: Karen Laureano <KLaureano@allenconcrete.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:26 AM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Cc: Chris Allen; Susie Allen; Katie Wallace Subject: Kalea Bay Project Attachments: Kalea Bay.pdf Gentlemen and ladies: Please see attached letter from Mr.Allen in reference to the Kalea Bay project. Thank you, CCONCileNciiE MASONRY . KarenLaureano 6301 Shirley Street Naples, FL 34109 239.566.1661 Ext. 216 239.254.8515 Fax klaureano@allenconcrete.com www.allenconcrete.com 1 GrecoSherry From: Inga Lodge <inga@kaleabay.com> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 3:15 PM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.neT; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: Kalea Bay To Collier County Commissioners: It is with great disappointment that I have heard there is to be a hearing on the future status of Kalea Bay. I am currently the Broker at the sales office at Kalea. We have had to deal with the harassment of many names on this list. They enter the sales office and complain we have illegally started building,they loudly complain we don't have permits etc. They do this in front of customers. Diane Rupnow even started a web page that we had our legal department shut down. Out of the 120 condo's in Tower 100, 60% are new buyers to Naples. They have the same dream as everyone else that would like to make Naples home. They have had plenty of opportunities to purchase in other existing high rises and chose to wait for Kalea Bay. There is nothing that says financial stability in Collier County then starting a high rise community. The last high-rise to be completed was Moraya Bay in 2009. Our new buyers are majority cash buyers paying an average of$1,800,000 to live at Kalea. Naples is poised to have a 4.9% increase in Economic Growth in the next year. How does that happen if a few people can dictate what can and can't be built? It seems that the citizens have more power than the Collier County Commissioners. The Commissioners that we vote for. 80% of our new residents at Kalea Bay are not homestead, that means these new homeowners will pay the highest property tax. That will be over $2,160,000 in property tax paid a year just on Tower 100! Of the list of 93 names presented for the appeal are you aware that 29% of the people on the list are not full- time residents? They can not vote for the County Commissioners, but they are allowed to dictate whether 300 full-time residents continue to work in North Naples. We are not just building the Kalea Bay community, we are building FOR THE COMMUNITY, for those people that work and live in North Naples. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Warm Regards, INGA W. LODGE BROKER/VP SALES & MARKETING 13910 Old Coast Rd Naples, FL. 34110 (o)239.793.0110(c)239.560.1171 Wilson&Associates Exclusive listing agent KALEA 0 1 GrecoSherry From: Andy Cathey <acathey@rosenmaterials.com> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 7:58 AM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Phase 2 To the Collier County Commissioners, I have been a resident of Collier County since 1987 and part of the Construction industry since 1989. It has come to my attention that there is some opposition to the 2"d phase of Kalea Bay. My company, Rosen Materials, supplies building materials and supplied Kalea Bay Phase 1. During that time we added additional employees that have supported Collier County in many other areas. I am concerned with any decision to stop this project as it will continue to provide our employees (currently at 32) continued employment. The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and growing economy. Thank you for your time! Andy Cathey Regional Manager-West Florida 239-253-8529 acathey@rosenmaterials.com ROSEN MATERIALS 1 GrecoSherry From: BrownleeMichael Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 3:33 PM To: BrownleeMichael; FilsonSue; GoodnerAngela; GrecoSherry; LykinsDave Subject: Hand Delivered item re: item 8A Attachments: 20170707153154508.pdf In addition to the email sent this afternoon, Katherine English's office (Pavese Law Firm) hand delivered the attached this afternoon at 3:25pm. Michael Brownlee Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Donna Fiala, District#1 W. Harmon Turner Building- Bldg "F" 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite#303 Naples, FL 34112 P: (239) 252-8601 F: (239) 252-6578 MichaelBrownlee@colliergov.net Cot County Subscribe to Commissioner Fiala's Newsletter here. Under FLorida Law, e-maiL addresses are pubLic records. If you do not want your e-maiL address reLeased in response to a pubLic records request, do not send electronic maiL to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 PAVESE KATHERINE R.ENGLISH Pm firer• II:_JL/:\, Irv;;r 1EI1 ,J\'I Direct dial:( lve 336-6244 Email:t\�rtrr-rrnr.}'rr n{Sch1rna��r.r{a,rnni 1833 Hendry Street, Fort Myers,Florida 33901 I P.O. Box 1507, Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1507 I(239)334-2195 I Fax(239) 332-2243 O t!a E l!. II l`J lig July 7,2017 al JUL 0 7 2017 Board of County Commissioners Mr. Matthew McLean By Collier County,Florida Engineering Services- 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Growth Management Division Naples,FL 34112 Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Collier County Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112-5749 Naples, FL 34112-5746 Re: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Administrative Appeal by Judith S. Palay,et al. Kalea Bay Phases 2-6 PL20160002242 Ladies and Gentlemen: Our firm represents Lodge/Abbott Associates, LLC and Lodge/Abbott Investments Associates,LLC. (collectively,"Lodge/Abbott"),the owners of Cocohatchee Bay PUD.We are co-counsel with Margaret Cooper, Esquire,of Jones Foster Johnston&Stubbs who handled the earlier litigation resulting in the 2008 Settlement Agreement regarding this project. I will be appearing at the appeal hearing on July 11, 2017 on behalf of Lodge/Abbott.Also appearing for Lodge/Abbott will be Karen Bishop of PMS Inc.of Naples,Inc.Ms.Bishop is the project entitlement facilitator. This appeal arises from a challenge to Lodge/Abbott's request for an amendment to a previously issued site development plan(SDP Amendment)for the project authorizing Buildings 2,3 and 5. The original 2008 SDP for which an amendment is sought was approved by staff in the regular course of business. The Appellants make much of the fact that the County and the land owner entered into the Settlement Agreement resolving a dispute over the appropriate approach to a bald eagle management plan for the project. The Settlement Agreement and its provisions are not relevant to the appeal challenging the present amendment to the SDP. The SDP Amendment subject to this appeal is limited in scope and includes only issues normally addressed by staff in the regular course of business. 4632 VINCENNES BOULEVARD,SUITE 101 4524 GUN CLUB ROAD,SUITE 203 CAPE CORAL,FLORIDA 33904 WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33415 (239)542-3148 (561)471-1366 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 3 neighborhood open space/conservation areas that would not be otherwise attainable. It was the increase in preservation/open.space which garnished the approval of criteria noted in the PUD specifically utilizing the more desirable clustered design type development.By encouraging site design that located most of the units in the five towers, rather than single family or low density multi-family homes, the end result was more open space,golf course, and preservation areas which now constitute approximately 90% of the 532 acres in the property. The project's preservation commitment is extraordinary. The project's preserve areas total 431.37 acres, including uplands, wetlands and submerged lands. The preservation provided by the project west of Vanderbilt Drive completes the connection for a wetland/waterway preservation area that stretches from Bonita Beach Road to Bluebill Avenue and connects to the State owned lands along the coast. Initial Reliance of Lodge/Abbott. The original applicant for the PUD Ordinance was a contract purchaser,Vanderbilt Partners II,Ltd. Lodge/Abbott later bought Vanderbilt Partners'contract in reliance on passage of the PUD at a purchase price in excess of$32 million was set in reliance upon the passage of the PUD. Lodge/Abbott has also invested substantial time and money toward active development. Also,Collier County required Lodge/Abbott to provide monies ($3,000,000,) for improvements to the bridge, dedicate easements,and provide rights of way on Vanderbilt Drive. Right-of-way was also provided for Wiggins Pass Road as a condition of the PUD. PUD Requirement for a Bald Eagle Management Plan. At the time of PUD approval,a pair of bald eagles had nested in a dead slash pine tree located on the westerly portion of the Subject Property. The LDC and GMP required a Bald Eagle Management Plan which had to comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the USFWS and FFWCC. Collier County GMP and LDC on Species Protection—Deference to State and Federal Permitting. Collier County's GMP(addressing protected species)called for deference to state and federal agency guidelines and their decisions. County staff had no expertise in such matters.The County policies referred to the standards contained in the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and the USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. For bald eagles,the Habitat Management Guidelines called for protective zones around the nest and restricted development activities during the nesting season. In Collier County once there has been a specific ruling by the USFWS and FFWCC,subparagraph(3)of GMP Policy 7.1.2.became the operative standard and deference to the specific ruling is mandated. Similarly,the County Land Development Code§3.04.02(2005),mandated the owner use the guidelines found in the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle. The Code repeated the GMP deference to the specific rulings of the state and federal agencies on individual properties, on a case-by-case basis. There was never a proposal to harm the eagles or even to cut down the nest tree. SDP Application. After getting state and federal approvals,Lodge/Abbott submitted site development plans("SDP")for the clubhouse and residential dwelling units to Collier County. The SDP application called for modifications to the site plan and moving of units from the golf course to the tower buildings. Also, the PUD document had a setback requirement between principal structures,calling for half of the sum of the height Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo F. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 5 The Settlement Agreement approved the PUD amendments to change the location of the units into one R zone and to amend the Master Development Plan. Original PUD Rl zone 480 units 44.0 acres R2 zone 90 units 9.7 acres Golf Course 20 units 170.39 acres 590 units total Amended PUD * R Zone 588 units 53.7 acres Golf Course 2 units 170.39 acres 590 units total *See Amended PUD Paragraph 2.3 and Table I The Settlement Agreement did not address or include approval of the SDP changes calling for the requested reduced setbacks.The Settlement Agreement was,however,contingent upon staff's timely approval of the three SDPs. The County recognized and understood that the review and approval of those three SDPs, including subsequent modifications to those SDPs were considered normal exercises of administrative staff level functions. In other words,approvals of SDPs were not,nor have they ever been matters for the BCC.See paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement! Contrary to Appellants'assertion,the Settlement Agreement did not require or otherwise provide for BCC review of future SDP amendments. It only required BCC approval of changes to the Settlement Agreement itself,which relates to the bald eagle management plan,not site development plans.See paragraph 21 of the Settlement Agreement.3 The Settlement Agreement approved the Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan and removed the requirement that any future amendment to the BEMP required County EAC review.See paragraph 6.9.F. How the County has implemented Settlement Agreement. Since 2008 both the County and Lodge/Abbott have implemented the Settlement Agreement exactly as it reads and as they understood it—that SDP review and approval is a staff administrative matter. This is exactly how every other project in Collier 2 3. The settlement shall be contingent upon three site development plans("SDPs")that Lodge has submitted being approved by the County as well as the development standards set forth in the original PUD and may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR 5283,and AR5284. 3 21, This Agreement and Release may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release.This Agreement and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 7 separated,there would be a need to further impact areas previously set aside as preserves to accommodate the development. Standing and Status of Appellants The location of the proposed buildings is significant.They are located as far west into the interior of the property as possible, abutting the westerly wetlands and preserves,to provide the greatest distance from the Vanderbilt Drive right-of-way.The property is bounded on the west by Wiggins State Park and Barefoot Beach County Park and the wetland preserve buffers for those parks. To the east of the project's 159+/- acre golf course parcel is Tarpon Cove PUD. Wiggins Bay PUD,is located south of the golf course parcel and Wiggins Pass Road.To the north of the golf course parcel is Glen Eden,Falling Waters,Bentley Village and Audubon. To the south of the high-rise parcel on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive are the existing mid- to high-rise projects of Aqua, Pelican Isle Yacht Club,Marina Bay,Anchorage,and the Dunes PUD. To the north of the western parcel is Arbor Trace PUD and Egrets Walk. Most of the Appellants live north of the Cocohatchee PUD.Due to their specific locations within their own development projects,the existing substantial landscaping buffers for those projects provide visual screening so that they are not impacted visually by this project. The building separation modification is internal to the Kalea Bay project and addresses the buildings' physical proximity to each other, not to other developments. Moreover the north to south alignment of the buildings means that changes in the building separation as proposed has no visual impact of the vistas from the property to the north. Internal setbacks anticipated by a clustering site design are truly an internal matter — not a development aspect that burdens any adjoining property owner or neighbor. Pursuant to Section 250-58,an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party may appeal a site development plan. An affected property owner is an owner of property located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is effective. An aggrieved or affected party is a person or group of persons who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth Management Plan,Land Development Code,or Building Code(s). While the alleged adverse interest for an aggrieved or affected party may be shared in common with other members of the community at large,it must exceed the general interest in the community good common to all persons(emphasis added). The Appellants have failed to provide justification for their standing to raise this appeal, either as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party. Prior to hearing the basis of the appeal, as filed, Appellants must establish their standing to bring the appeal either due to proximity to the project or an interest which exceeds the general interests in the community good of all persons. To the extent that one,some or all of the Appellants cannot establish their status as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party,their individual claims should be dismissed for lack of standing. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr.County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 9 Substantive Arguments Issue 1. Public Hearing Appellants assert that the Settlement Agreement requires a public hearing and BCC approval before amendment to SDP plans.It does not.In fact,the Settlement Agreement did not call for the BCC to approve the 2008 SDP plans—but only made the Settlement Agreement contingent upon staffs review and approval of the 2008 SDP plans.The Settlement Agreement only modified the PUD Document vis a vis the Eagle Management Plan.Paragraph 21 deals with amending the Settlement Agreement only—not amending future SDPs.The PUD document specifically requires SDP amendments to be reviewed and issued by staff and clearly allows modification to building setbacks to facilitate clustering by staff's administrative action. Issue 2.Building Separation Appellants rely heavily on the Collier County Planning Commission("CCPC")suggestion in 2008 to eliminate the staff's discretion to consider reduced building setbacks to facilitate clustering.This suggestion by the CCPC was not accepted by BCC and is not part of the Settlement Agreement the BCC approved. Contrary to Appellants claims that the buildings are too close,the Collier County LDC specifically sets forth definitions for"cluster"and"cluster development"that provide for closely grouping buildings in order to provide environmental benefits. Indeed, the definitions for those words include the rationale for allowing closely grouping buildings in order to increase open space and reduce impacts to native vegetation and habitat areas while reducing the costs of providing services. 4 Next Appellants argue that staff abused its discretion in approving the reduction of building separation by large percentages and that reductions should be limited to small percentages of the overall building separation requirements. The Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards for the "R" District set forth in Table II of the amended PUD states that the distance between principal structures is 0.5 times the sum of the building heights, subject to Note 3 which states: Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and the walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The plan language of the PUD clearly states that the building separation can be administratively reduced. Further,since the BCC in reviewing and adopting the amended PUD as part of the Settlement 4 LDC Section1.08.02 Cluster:Concentrating or grouping buildings more closely than in conventional arrangements,locating such buildings on a limited portion of a development site,in order to allow for open space or preservation of natural features. Cluster development:A design technique allowed within residential zoning districts or where residential development is an allowable use.This form of development employs a more compact arrangement of dwelling units by allowing for,or requiring as the case may be,reductions in the standard or typical lot size and yard requirements of the applicable zoning district,in order to: increase common open space;reduce the overall development area;reduce alterations and impacts to natural resources on the site;to preserve additional native vegetation and habitat areas;and,to reduce the cost of providing services,including but not limited to central sewer and water. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 11 Issue 5. Building Height This is a non-issue. The locating amenities on the roof area of each tower were previously addressed. There is no amenity located on the roof that affects calculation of the building height. The current amenities located on the roof tops are limited to a recreational area that is not enclosed in an air-conditioned space. By code,these amenities are not sufficient to constitute an additional floor for height calculations. Issue 6. Garage Dwelling Unit The proposed building manager's living area in the SDP Amendment is not within the garage,but in a separate building that is part of the common area for the Project. It is an accessory use, not a unit offered separately for sale,to assure housing for on-site management. Staff's approval of the building manager's living area in the separate building as an accessory use has no effect on the calculation of building height for Buildings 2, 3 and 5. The approval is authorized by the PUD provision regarding accessory uses. See Section 3.4.B.3.6 Furthermore,the manager's unit does not count toward density under the applicable LDC regulations and the PUD as an accessory use. Issue 7. Restrictive Covenant This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal.Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to restrictive covenants. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 8. Invasive Control. This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal. Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to invasive control. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 9. Ten Foot Pathway This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal.Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to the ten foot pathway. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. 6 3.4.B.3 Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature to the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Department Director determines to be compatible in the"R"Districts. GrecoSherry From: Sandy Smith <SandySmith@Paveselaw.com> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 2:30 PM To: McLeanMatthew; KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: BosiMichael; ralf@ralfbrookesattorney.com; mcooper@jonesfoster.com; Karen Bishop (karenbishop@pmsnaples.com); Katherine English Subject: Request for Party Intervenor Status.July 7, 2017 Attachments: Request for Party Intervenor Status.July 7 2017.pdf Ms. English requested the attached pdf document be forwarded to you for your information and review. Hard copies will be hand delivered shortly. Please contact us at your convenience if you have any questions or cannot open the attachment. Sandy Smith Legal Assistant to Katherine R. English PAVESE 1833 Hendry Street(33901) lAw Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers,FL 33902 Direct 239.336.6249 Fax 239.332.2243 sandysmithApaveselaw.com Visit our website: www.paveselaw.com Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this transmission is legally privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone call to (239) 334-2195 and delete the message. Thank you. This law firm acts as a debt collector. This e-mail may be an attempt to collect a debt. If so, all information obtained will be used for that purpose. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd. 1 PAVESE KATHERINE R.ENGLISH Partner Directdial:(239)336-6249LAW FIRM Email:KatherineEnalishapaveselaw.com 1833 Hendry Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 1 P.O. Box 1507, Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1507 1 (239)334-2195 1 Fax(239) 332-2243 July 7,2017 Board of County Commissioners Mr. Matthew McLean Collier County, Florida Engineering Services- 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Growth Management Division Naples,FL 34112 Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Collier County Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112-5749 Naples,FL 34112-5746 Re: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Administrative Appeal by Judith S. Palay, et al. Kalea Bay Phases 2-6 PL20160002242 Ladies and Gentlemen: Our firm represents Lodge/Abbott Associates, LLC and Lodge/Abbott Investments Associates,LLC. (collectively,"Lodge/Abbott"),the owners of Cocohatchee Bay PUD.We are co-counsel with Margaret Cooper, Esquire,of Jones Foster Johnston&Stubbs who handled the earlier litigation resulting in the 2008 Settlement Agreement regarding this project. I will be appearing at the appeal hearing on July 11, 2017 on behalf of Lodge/Abbott.Also appearing for Lodge/Abbott will be Karen Bishop of PMS Inc.of Naples,Inc.Ms.Bishop is the project entitlement facilitator. This appeal arises from a challenge to Lodge/Abbott's request for an amendment to a previously issued site development plan(SDP Amendment)for the project authorizing Buildings 2,3 and 5. The original 2008 SDP for which an amendment is sought was approved by staff in the regular course of business. The Appellants make much of the fact that the County and the land owner entered into the Settlement Agreement resolving a dispute over the appropriate approach to a bald eagle management plan for the project. The Settlement Agreement and its provisions are not relevant to the appeal challenging the present amendment to the SDP. The SDP Amendment subject to this appeal is limited in scope and includes only issues normally addressed by staff in the regular course of business. 4632 VINCENNES BOULEVARD,SUITE 101 4524 GUN CLUB ROAD,SUITE 203 CAPE CORAL,FLORIDA 33904 WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33415 (239)542-3148 (561)471-1366 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 3 neighborhood open space/conservation areas that would not be otherwise attainable. It was the increase in preservation/open space which garnished the approval of criteria noted in the PUD specifically utilizing the more desirable clustered design type development.By encouraging site design that located most of the units in the five towers, rather than single family or low density multi-family homes, the end result was more open space, golf course, and preservation areas which now constitute approximately 90% of the 532 acres in the property. The project's preservation commitment is extraordinary. The project's preserve areas total 431.37 acres, including uplands, wetlands and submerged lands. The preservation provided by the project west of Vanderbilt Drive completes the connection for a wetland/waterway preservation area that stretches from Bonita Beach Road to Bluebill Avenue and connects to the State owned lands along the coast. Initial Reliance of Lodge/Abbott. The original applicant for the PUD Ordinance was a contract purchaser,Vanderbilt Partners II,Ltd. Lodge/Abbott later bought Vanderbilt Partners' contract in reliance on passage of the PUD at a purchase price in excess of$32 million was set in reliance upon the passage of the PUD. Lodge/Abbott has also invested substantial time and money toward active development. Also,Collier County required Lodge/Abbott to provide monies ($3,000,000.) for improvements to the bridge, dedicate easements,and provide rights of way on Vanderbilt Drive. Right-of-way was also provided for Wiggins Pass Road as a condition of the PUD. PUD Requirement for a Bald Eagle Management Plan. At the time of PUD approval,a pair of bald eagles had nested in a dead slash pine tree located on the westerly portion of the Subject Property. The LDC and GMP required a Bald Eagle Management Plan which had to comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the USFWS and FFWCC. Collier County GMP and LDC on Species Protection—Deference to State and Federal Permitting. Collier County's GMP(addressing protected species)called for deference to state and federal agency guidelines and their decisions. County staff had no expertise in such matters.The County policies referred to the standards contained in the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and the USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. For bald eagles, the Habitat Management Guidelines called for protective zones around the nest and restricted development activities during the nesting season. In Collier County once there has been a specific ruling by the USFWS and FFWCC,subparagraph(3)of GMP Policy 7.1.2.became the operative standard and deference to the specific ruling is mandated. Similarly,the County Land Development Code§3.04.02(2005),mandated the owner use the guidelines found in the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle. The Code repeated the GMP deference to the specific rulings of the state and federal agencies on individual properties, on a case-by-case basis. There was never a proposal to harm the eagles or even to cut down the nest tree. SDP Application. After getting state and federal approvals,Lodge/Abbott submitted site development plans("SDP")for the clubhouse and residential dwelling units to Collier County. The SDP application called for modifications to the site plan and moving of units from the golf course to the tower buildings. Also,the PUD document had a setback requirement between principal structures,calling for half of the sum of the height Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 5 The Settlement Agreement approved the PUD amendments to change the location of the units into one R zone and to amend the Master Development Plan. Original PUD Rl zone 480 units 44.0 acres R2 zone 90 units 9.7 acres Golf Course 20 units 170.39 acres 590 units total Amended PUD * R Zone 588 units 53.7 acres Golf Course 2 units 170.39 acres 590 units total *See Amended PUD Paragraph 2.3 and Table I The Settlement Agreement did not address or include approval of the SDP changes calling for the requested reduced setbacks.The Settlement Agreement was,however,contingent upon staff's timely approval of the three SDPs. The County recognized and understood that the review and approval of those three SDPs, including subsequent modifications to those SDPs were considered normal exercises of administrative staff level functions. In other words,approvals of SDPs were not,nor have they ever been matters for the BCC.See paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement.2 Contrary to Appellants'assertion, the Settlement Agreement did not require or otherwise provide for BCC review of future SDP amendments. It only required BCC approval of changes to the Settlement Agreement itself,which relates to the bald eagle management plan,not site development plans.See paragraph 21 of the Settlement Agreement.3 The Settlement Agreement approved the Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan and removed the requirement that any future amendment to the BEMP required County EAC review.See paragraph 6.9.F. How the County has implemented Settlement Agreement. Since 2008 both the County and Lodge/Abbott have implemented the Settlement Agreement exactly as it reads and as they understood it—that SDP review and approval is a staff administrative matter. This is exactly how every other project in Collier 2 3. The settlement shall be contingent upon three site development plans("SDPs")that Lodge has submitted being approved by the County as well as the development standards set forth in the original PUD and may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR 5283,and AR5284. 3 21. This Agreement and Release may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release.This Agreement and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 7 separated,there would be a need to further impact areas previously set aside as preserves to accommodate the development. Standing and Status of Appellants The location of the proposed buildings is significant.They are located as far west into the interior of the property as possible, abutting the westerly wetlands and preserves, to provide the greatest distance from the Vanderbilt Drive right-of-way.The property is bounded on the west by Wiggins State Park and Barefoot Beach County Park and the wetland preserve buffers for those parks. To the east of the project's 159+/- acre golf course parcel is Tarpon Cove PUD. Wiggins Bay PUD,is located south of the golf course parcel and Wiggins Pass Road.To the north of the golf course parcel is Glen Eden,Falling Waters,Bentley Village and Audubon. To the south of the high-rise parcel on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive are the existing mid- to high-rise projects of Aqua, Pelican Isle Yacht Club, Marina Bay,Anchorage, and the Dunes PUD. To the north of the western parcel is Arbor Trace PUD and Egrets Walk. Most of the Appellants live north of the Cocohatchee PUD.Due to their specific locations within their own development projects,the existing substantial landscaping buffers for those projects provide visual screening so that they are not impacted visually by this project. The building separation modification is internal to the Kalea Bay project and addresses the buildings' physical proximity to each other, not to other developments. Moreover the north to south alignment of the buildings means that changes in the building separation as proposed has no visual impact of the vistas from the property to the north. Internal setbacks anticipated by a clustering site design are truly an internal matter — not a development aspect that burdens any adjoining property owner or neighbor. Pursuant to Section 250-58,an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party may appeal a site development plan. An affected property owner is an owner of property located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is effective. An aggrieved or affected party is a person or group of persons who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Land Development Code,or Building Code(s). While the alleged adverse interest for an aggrieved or affected party may be shared in common with other members of the community at large,it must exceed the general interest in the community good common to all persons (emphasis added). The Appellants have failed to provide justification for their standing to raise this appeal, either as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party. Prior to hearing the basis of the appeal, as filed, Appellants must establish their standing to bring the appeal either due to proximity to the project or an interest which exceeds the general interests in the community good of all persons. To the extent that one,some or all of the Appellants cannot establish their status as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party,their individual claims should be dismissed for lack of standing. 5 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 9 Substantive Arguments Issue 1. Public Hearing Appellants assert that the Settlement Agreement requires a public hearing and BCC approval before amendment to SDP plans.It does not.In fact,the Settlement Agreement did not call for the BCC to approve the 2008 SDP plans—but only made the Settlement Agreement contingent upon staffs review and approval of the 2008 SDP plans.The Settlement Agreement only modified the PUD Document vis a vis the Eagle Management Plan.Paragraph 21 deals with amending the Settlement Agreement only—not amending future SDPs.The PUD document specifically requires SDP amendments to be reviewed and issued by staff and clearly allows modification to building setbacks to facilitate clustering by staff's administrative action. Issue 2. Building Separation Appellants rely heavily on the Collier County Planning Commission("CCPC")suggestion in 2008 to eliminate the staff's discretion to consider reduced building setbacks to facilitate clustering.This suggestion by the CCPC was not accepted by BCC and is not part of the Settlement Agreement the BCC approved. Contrary to Appellants claims that the buildings are too close,the Collier County LDC specifically sets forth definitions for"cluster"and"cluster development"that provide for closely grouping buildings in order to provide environmental benefits. Indeed, the definitions for those words include the rationale for allowing closely grouping buildings in order to increase open space and reduce impacts to native vegetation and habitat areas while reducing the costs of providing services. 4 Next Appellants argue that staff abused its discretion in approving the reduction of building separation by large percentages and that reductions should be limited to small percentages of the overall building separation requirements. The Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards for the "R" District set forth in Table II of the amended PUD states that the distance between principal structures is 0.5 times the sum of the building heights, subject to Note 3 which states: Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and the walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The plan language of the PUD clearly states that the building separation can be administratively reduced. Further,since the BCC in reviewing and adopting the amended PUD as part of the Settlement 4 LDC Section1.08.02 Cluster:Concentrating or grouping buildings more closely than in conventional arrangements, locating such buildings on a limited portion of a development site,in order to allow for open space or preservation of natural features. Cluster development:A design technique allowed within residential zoning districts or where residential development is an allowable use.This form of development employs a more compact arrangement of dwelling units by allowing for,or requiring as the case may be,reductions in the standard or typical lot size and yard requirements of the applicable zoning district,in order to: increase common open space;reduce the overall development area;reduce alterations and impacts to natural resources on the site;to preserve additional native vegetation and habitat areas;and,to reduce the cost of providing services,including but not limited to central sewer and water. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 11 Issue S. Building Height This is a non-issue. The locating amenities on the roof area of each tower were previously addressed. There is no amenity located on the roof that affects calculation of the building height. The current amenities located on the roof tops are limited to a recreational area that is not enclosed in an air-conditioned space. By code,these amenities are not sufficient to constitute an additional floor for height calculations. Issue 6. Garage Dwelling Unit The proposed building manager's living area in the SDP Amendment is not within the garage,but in a separate building that is part of the common area for the Project. It is an accessory use, not a unit offered separately for sale,to assure housing for on-site management. Staff's approval of the building manager's living area in the separate building as an accessory use has no effect on the calculation of building height for Buildings 2, 3 and 5. The approval is authorized by the PUD provision regarding accessory uses. See Section 3.4.B.3.6 Furthermore,the manager's unit does not count toward density under the applicable LDC regulations and the PUD as an accessory use. Issue 7. Restrictive Covenant This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal. Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to restrictive covenants. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 8. Invasive Control. This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal.Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to invasive control. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 9. Ten Foot Pathway This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal. Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to the ten foot pathway. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. 6 3.4.B.3 Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature to the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Department Director determines to be compatible in the"R"Districts. 1 ORDINANCE NO.2017- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING AN IMPACT FEE INSTALLMENT PAYMENT PILOT PROGRAM FOR THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AREA; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 1,2017. WHEREAS, the costs of housing within Collier County, and especially affordable housing, continues to be an area of great concern to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, enhancing and expanding economic activity within Collier County is also a matter of great concern to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, Collier County has some of the highest impact fees within the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is concerned that these impact fees may be negatively impacting both the costs of housing and inhibiting economic activity within Collier County; and WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners would like to do a pilot program to ascertain whether allowing the payment of impact fees by an installment program, as a voluntary alternative to paying the fees in a single, up-front payment, will have a positive effect on both the costs of housing and economic growth; and WHEREAS, to ensure payment, the Board of County Commissioners believes that payment of impact fees by installments should be an obligation that runs with the land meaning that as owners of the property change, the obligation will continue. In this manner, everyone who owns the property that is being benefitted by the improvements made by the impact fees will share in the cost of the impact fees; and WHEREAS, to prevent unintended consequences, the Board will annually review this Pilot Program,with staff preparing regular updated reports that any Commissioner can review; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners believes that (1) the area comprising what is known as the Immokalee CRA is an ideal area to test this pilot program; (2) the program will foster the Community Redevelopment Plan for that area; and(3)the program will reduce blight in that area. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: A new Article H, subsection(h) in Section 74-201 of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-13, as amended, is hereby created to read as follows: (h) Impact Fee Installment Payment Pilot Program. (1) The purpose of this Program is to establish an impact fee installment payment pilot program which is intended to provide the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, 1 of (6) Any person seeking an agreement shall file with the county manager an application and the agreement shall be fully executed and recorded prior to issuance of a temporary or final certificate of occupancy or payment of impact fees. (7) Prior to May 1 of each fiscal year, the feepayer of a parcel assessed hereunder shall have the right to pay the outstanding and unpaid balance(s) owed without a prepayment penalty. (8) Pursuant to the Uniform Assessment Collection Act, non ad-valorem assessments levied pursuant to this section shall remain liens, coequal with the lien of all state, county, district and municipal taxes, superior in dignity to all other liens,titles and claims, until paid. (9) For purposes of this subsection the following conditions shall apply: (a) A feepayer must be the legal owner of the property, or designated agent of the owner, and shall provide written and notarized proof of authorization from the owner when requesting to pay impact fees under this subsection; and (b) The feepayer and/or owner must be current on property taxes on the subject property and any other real property owned in Collier County by feepayer and/or owner; and (c) The feepayer and/or owner cannot be in bankruptcy nor can the property be an asset in any bankruptcy proceeding; and (d) The subject property cannot be in foreclosure and cannot have any federal income tax lien,judgment lien or similar liens encumbering the property. (10)As an alternative method to the repayment of impact fees by special assessments under this section, the county administrator or designee may elect to lien the feepayer's property to secure repayment of impact fees paid under this section and is authorized to take any necessary action, including the development of any rules, procedures, agreements and forms to effectuate this method, at the same term and interest rate as set by the Board of County Commissioners. (11) To prevent unintended consequence, the Board will annually review this Pilot Program, with staff preparing regular updated reports that any Commissioner can review. (12) Prior to the third anniversary of this ordinance, the County Manager shall prepare and present a report to the Board of County Commissioners detailing what effect, if any, this program has had on housing costs and economic development, with a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on whether to amend, expand, or discontinue this pilot program. SECTION TWO: Conflict and Severability. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. 3 of 4 RECEIVED To: L, 11�� '3•,/e(.��`2 P iy 7-41/4-612_ JUL 0 3 2017 From: Donna Reed Caron OFFICES OF COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date: July 2, 2017 District I District 2 Re: Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and PUD District 3 District 4 District 5 In a thinly veiled attempt to justify actions antithetical to good planning, staff issued a memorandum dated April 28, 2017 trying to explain the application of development standards for the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. The staff approval letter spends a great deal of time trying to clarify their actions and quoting the "clear language" of Florida Statutes. Critical to the discussion currently being brought forward by citizens is that staff is not following the Settlement Agreement and all of it's component parts in the reviewing process. The following is attempt to detail submitted changes in both clear language and unambiguous facts. Building One is 50 feet wider than shown on the original SDPs. The apparent intent is to make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of another whole building to the plan and further exacerbating the building separation issue. Clear and unambiguous. The developer has added twelve guest suites as accessory units. However, the PUD lists guest suites and cabanas as permitted uses and they are to be counted as part of the total number of residential units: 590. Four 20 story buildings each with 120 units equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Plus twelve guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So as of this date, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of units allowed. Clear and unambiguous. Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top structures such as the pool, community meeting room, and fitness center. According to the PUD, building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the upper most finished ceiling elevation of the roof structure. Also County Land Development Code staff and Zoning & Land Development staff issued an official clarification on the issue of roof-top accessory structures: SC 2004-05, "... the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased height, and refers to unenclosed, unroofed, and un-air conditioned space for recreational use." Clear and unambiguous. A housing unit (a habitable structure) has been added to the garage level, conflicting further with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. Clear and unambiguous. The plans that exist at the County are inconsistent with those submitted to South Florida Water Management - - - preventing any factual analysis to be conducted. For example the SFWMD plans show the addition of two four-plex units, further exceeding the allowed unit count. Nothing clear or unambiguous about this. Building separations are less than code minimums of 1/2 the sum of the building heights, and less than the already reduced and adjusted separations (as per PUD footnote #3) shown on the SDPs attached to the PUD and Settlement Agreement. To quote from the CCPC review that was accepted and approved by Board action, "However, as a result of language in the PUD, the CCPC recommends reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. As an alternative to the reduction in separation, greater distances could be provided by moving alternating towers closer to Vanderbilt Drive." Those separations are as follows: building 1 to 2, 153 feet; building 2 to 3, 126 feet; building 3 to 4, 127 feet; building 4 to 5, 341 feet. The Settlement Agreement, PUD, Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission, and three SDPs reviewed and approved by staff were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 22, 2008. This action was taken in total as part of the Summary Agenda. Again, The Board approved all documents as presented without objection from the County Attorney, County Manager, county staff, the petitioner, the petitioners agent or citizens. Clear and unambiguous. Staff cites several examples of supposed historical application of the administrative reduction of building separations. However, only one of the examples represents a high rise tower project and it is a side yard set back not a building separation situation. In this instance, staffs action was understandable since the Waterpark Place building is not next to another high rise but rather a four lane tree lined parking area leading to a tram to Pelican Bay beach. There are no past projects analogous to the Cocohatchee/Kalea Bay project. Clear and unambiguous. Besides the clear and unambiguous language of Florida statutes being an important tenet, ignoring any portion of an ordinance or law or reducing the language to an absurdity is equally important. Staffs interpretation that there is no limit to reducing building separations because of clauses such as `footnote #3', is not a credible interpretation. Additionally, staff cannot ignore the fact that the CCPC recommendation was included with the PUD, Settlement Agreement and Bald Eagle Management Plan on the Summary Agenda and was approved by The Board on April 22, 2008. The citizens of Collier County harbor serious concerns that must be addressed in a timely fashion. Upholding the Settlement in it's entirety is not only reasonable and proper, but critical to the community's continued trust in the rule of law, our ordinances, the sanctity of contracts and settlements, and of course to the integrity of and respect for our system of county governance and the people elected and appointed to assure equal treatment for all. Thank you. Donna Reed Caron 790 Wiggins Bay Drive ✓? �� "� Naples, FL. 34110 239-514-2780 239-280-6857 GrecoSherry From: Lisa Darcy <lisad2727@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 5:36 PM To: FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; HenningTom; TaylorPenny; NanceTim Subject: Cocohatchee Bay Preserve - DENY Please consider denying variance on originally approved plan by Lodge Abbott for Cocohatchee Bay Preserve/Kalea Bay. Developers should not be encouraged to modify originally approved plans.This practice needs to be stopped. If developer agreed to leave land as a preserve, that is the way it should remain.We all know they never planned on leaving any preserve.This is the developer with a history of pulling down eagle's nests. Do the right thing. Lisa d'Arcy GrecoSherry From: SheffieldMichael Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2017 10:08 AM To: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue Subject: 7/11 BCC Meeting - Cocohatchee Bay/ Kalea Bay Appeal It is expected that we will receive phone calls from the public asking about this item, 8a, (below) on the 7/11 BCC agenda (Appeal - Cocohatchee Bay/ Kalea Bay). Please advise the caller that the item will be heard at 1:30 time certain and if they would like to speak, they are to fill out/turn-in a speaker slip to Troy Miller before the item begins. Thank you, Mike 8 A ***This item to be heard at 1:30 p.m.*** This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex- parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.Judith S.Palay and 92 other property owners within the Cocohatchee Bay Neighborhood Communities,filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the administrative approval of building separations, building widths, building dwelling units, and building heights in the Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA-PL20160002242 for Kalea Bay aka Kinsale Condominium Phases II-VI. The subject property is located at the northwest and northeast corners of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South and Range 25 East,in Collier County,Florida. [PL20170002165] Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. GrecoSherry From: Carole Wielosinski <carole@wielo.org> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:56 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: 175 acres on Vanderbilt Dr Dear Penny Taylor: Please preserve the land across from Kalea Bay on Vanderbilt Dr as a green space forever as promised. Please keep a quality of life for our wild animals and for our human population.We and the earth all need green space. Stop the insanity of thinking every natural preserve must be destroyed for development.The Kalea Bay development is enough desecration. Sincerely, Carole Wielosinski Collier County Homeowner. 1 GrecoSherry Subject: 2008 Cocohatchee Bay settlement agreement - Diane Rupnow and Judi Palay (update on new developments) Location: your office Start: Wed 2/22/2017 2:30 PM End: Wed 2/22/2017 3:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: TaylorPenny 402-580-1545 GrecoSherry From: Marilyn Stendahl <msten767@sysmatrix.net> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 12:40 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: 2008 Cocohatchee Settlement an PUD March 20, 2015 Dear Commissioner Taylor, As an elected Collier County Commissioner, one of the 5 chief legislators of our county, and someone we trust to listen to the people of Collier County and represent their interests, I appeal to you to VOTE NO on reopening the legal 2008 Cocohatchee settlement and PUD. Please hold the developer accountable to the legal settlement that was agreed to by both parties in 2008. Three words stood out to me this morning as I looked at the collier.net website. These words are directly from the mission statement under guiding principles (values) for the Collier County Commissioners. Knowledge: Please personally look at the land you are voting on, the east parcel on Vanderbilt Drive and Wiggins Pass Road. Then look at Lodge Abbot's Kalea Bay currently under development on the west parcel of the Cocohatchee PUD. You can't miss it. The parcel has been clear cut, and is mostly barren in preparation for many years of construction for 5 high rise condo buildings resulting in 582 additional units in this coastal high hazard flood area. Stewardship: The land in question, the east parcel of the Cochohatchee PUD, is one of the few remaining natural preserve parcels. Careful and responsible management of this natural resource is effectively entrusted to your care. Accountability: As a representative of the people of Collier County, please hold the developer accountable to the terms of the 2008 settlement and represent the constituents as you vote. In 2008, the developer agreed to the terms of the settlement resulting in leaving the east parcel of the PUD "FOREVER AS GREEN OPEN SPACE" if his then proposed golf course was not built on that land. In exchange, he was allowed to add extra units to his 5 high rise buildings on the west parcel of the PUD. According to his own website, Kalea Bay will have 582 residential waterfront units. He now proposes to build 64 units on the east parcel. He already had them added to the west parcel in 2008. 1 GrecoSherry From: Carl stendahl <cps2004@embarqmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:48 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: 2008 Settlement with Lodge Abbot Attachments: Documentl.docx Dear Commissioner Taylor, Please open and read the attachment, a letter to you on the subject of opening the 2008 settlement agreement with Lodge Abbot and Collier County. Thank you, Carl Stendahl 14813 Glen Eden Dr. Naples, FL 34110 (239) 514-7929 1 GrecoSherry From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 5:43 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: April 11th BCC Meeting Dear Commissioner Taylor, It was disappointing that we were not allowed to speak at the BCC meeting yesterday. We hosted an informational meeting at our clubhouse April 2nd and 91 constituents from 10 residential communities were in attendance. We decided collectively to attend the BCC meeting to ask for a public hearing. We want this put on a BCC agenda so what has happened with Kalea Bay's Building 1 will not also happen with Buildings 2--5. Building 1 is already built and County staff made decisions they should not have made. Unfortunately, those bad decisions can't be fixed because the building is almost finished. Now there is an amendment under review by County "staff' for Buildings 2--5. More bad decisions are going to be finalized and approved. We want the Commissioners to tell County Staff to NOT approve that amendment. We think this should be discussed among Commissioners WITH the community BEFORE the amendment is approved. We went to the April 11th BCC meeting to inform our County Commissioners that terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement have been violated. Paragraph 2 states ". . .This Agreement and Release expressly states the acceptable deviation in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control. County "staff" allowed the Building 1 SDP to be changed making the width of that building and all the other buildings to be increased 50' from 260' to 310'. That substantial change should have been done with the same formalities as the Settlement Agreement and gone to the BCC for approval. Paragraph 4 states that the County will expedite the review of three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. Those SDP's gave detailed descriptions of the buildings at Kalea Bay so that County staff, Commissioners and neighbors who are stakeholders in the final result could envision what the development would look like. County "staff' changed Building 1 SDP and allowed Building 1 to be slid one-third closer to Aqua, reducing the buffer from 166' to 106' That is a substantial change to the SDP approved in the Settlement Agreement and that change request should have gone to you, the BCC. 1 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 3 11111111111111111111...11* GrecoSherry From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:02 PM To: HillerGeorgia Cc: OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick; KlatzkowJeff Subject: Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Permit Is a Sham Attachments: paragraph 8.png; Kalea Bay golf.png; Overhead shot of cleared land on eastern parcel.png Dear Commissioner Hiller, Since you are a Collier County Commissioner I want you to be aware of a situation that I consider to be a violation of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement. I have sent the following message to: Leo Ochs,Nick Casalanguida,Matt McLean,Daryl Hughes,Jack McKenna,Paula Brethauer,Michelle Scavone and Summer Brown Araque. "As per terms in the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release signed by Collier County Commissioners and Lodge Abbott on June 9, 2008 and recorded in the official records of Collier County by Dwight Brock on June 10, 2008, the land on the NE corner of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt drive is limited in use to a golf course or a preserve in perpetuity. (See screen shot of paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement in attachment 1) Richard Corace(one of two developers making up Lodge Abbott)has made statements like, "golf courses are a liability"and Richard Grant(developer's attorney)has said, "golf courses are not as popular or as profitable as they one were." It is no secret that there are already plenty of golf courses in both Collier and Lee counties and some of them are struggling to make a profit. Because of this, some are asking to convert golf courses to residential zoning. All of the above would cast doubt on the likelihood that a savvy developer would build a new golf course in today's market and economy. Therefore, those of us who live adjacent to this "golf course parcel"were surprised when big machines moved in there last fall and clear-cut two large areas on the property and then hauled in hundreds of truckloads of fill from Kalea Bay. In September of 2015 and again in November, I sent a message to Matt McLean's office expressing our concerns about Lodge Abbott cutting down trees on property that should remain a preserve in its natural vegetative state if a golf course is not to be built. We were assured that Lodge Abbot's extension of a 2004 permit to build a golf course made his activities legal and possible. I also contacted Daryl Hughes, director of permits and Steve Nagle with Southwest Florida Water Management about our concerns and both reported back that all activity was allowed by the golf course permit. Please go online to the Kalea Bay website and read the entire section on amenities that will be provided to condo owners in the 5 towers and you will find no mention about a golf course being built. Don't you think promotional materials would include information 1 Respectfully, Michelle Scavone, GMD Operations Coordinator" The plans are illegible to me--very tiny and when I enlarge them the text is too fuzzy to read. Basically, I have questions for which I've received no answers. Needless to say,I am not happy that the county allowed Lodge Abbott to extend an old 2004 golf course permit which basically gives him permission to get the golf course parcel ready for whatever project he really intends to put there. . . This is clearly not the intent of the terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement. Lodge Abbott has no intention of building a golf course so it is wrong.to allow him to clear the land. What good is a Settlement Agreement if county officials do not enforce its terms? Would the general public think that Lodge Abbott is taking advantage of a flaw in the county's permit system and violating terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement? I just wanted you to have an update on this situation which is not going to go away quietly. See attachments below Respectfully, Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response t 3 July 7, 2017 Dear Commissioner Taylor, I am a Collier County resident living in District 2. I live in Glen Eden on the Lakes; our community shares the longest border with the golf course portion of the Kalea Bay development, on the East side of Vanderbilt Drive. I am asking for your help, and for your vote in the March 24, 2015 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. I and several of my fellow residents have tried to speak with Commissioner Hiller, our elected representative, who has refused to take our calls or respond to our emails. She directed County Attorney Jeffrey Klatzkow to contact my neighbor, Emily Kearns, who left multiple phone messages and emails for Commissioner Hiller not to call her anymore because Commissioner Hiller wishes to "remain impartial." This is ironic because in May, 2014 Commissioner Hiller arranged for and held joint meetings in her offices on Orange Blossom Drive with leaders of the various communities surrounding Kalea Bay, County Staff, and representatives of the developer, Lodge Abbot. In another instance my neighbor, Dr. Cressy, sent a letter to Commissioner Hiller about the opening of the 2008 Settlement and the PUD. On January 22, 2015, Commissioner Hiller forwarded the email to County Attorney Jeffery Klatzkow directing him to, "Please immediately correct Mr. Cressy's understanding, and copy me, and all who he copied. Please also copy the developer." County Attorney Kaltzkow's answer to Dr. Cressy was technically correct, but it did not answer the questions asked. Lodge Abbot has not shown trustworthiness in its many past dealings with Collier County, and we see no reason to believe them today when they say that they all want is to build 62 homes on the golf course land. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. With the 2008 Settlement and the PUD open they will be able to ask for anything they wish, and if turned down by the BCC, as they were in 2005, they would sue the citizens of Collier County again. I see no upside for the Citizens of Collier County if the 2008 Settlement and PUD are opened. GrecoSherry From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 9:32 AM To: TaylorPenny; GrecoSherry Subject: Our meeting today at 1:00 Good Morning Commissioner Taylor and Ms. Greco, I am looking forward to our meeting today at 1:00 and appreciate the opportunity to be heard. There will be 13 of us coming to the meeting today: Pat Bonser, Carl and Marilyn Stendhal, Barb and Mike Taylor, Peggy Ross and myself from Glen Eden on the Lakes; Jim and Kitty Shaw from Tarpon Cove; and Lou De Prisco and Dick Wilson from Arbor Trace. Brad Schiffer and Donna Reed Caron are also coming with us. Some of those who had signed up to speak last Tuesday have already headed north. . . We are going to gather outside at 12:45 and enter together. We will not fit into that small room on the 1st floor where we are supposed to check in and get approval before coming upstairs. I was wondering if I could call you directly and get permission to come up or could you somehow facilitate this for us?? I have some photos on my laptop that I would like to show Commissioner Taylor and I was wondering if you have the technology in place to allow them to be projected on a TV or screen or wall so all in our group could see. Thank you. Please call with your response to my questions. Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(cr�,gmail.com 402 580-1545 1 GrecoSherry Subject: Diane Rupnow - Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement etc. Location: conf rm Start: Tue 4/18/2017 1:00 PM End: Tue 4/18/2017 2:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: TaylorPenny 402-580-1545 Attendees for mtg Pat Bonser, Carl and Marilyn Stendhal, Barb and Mike Taylor, Peggy Ross and myself from Glen Eden on the Lakes; Jim and Kitty Shaw from Tarpon Cove; and Lou De Prisco and Dick Wilson from Arbor Trace. Brad Schiffer and Donna Reed Caron are also coming with us. Some of those who had signed up to speak last Tuesday have already headed north. . . i Our meeting today at 1:00 1 GrecoSherry From: Chris.Brasher@Ferguson.com Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:39 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: FW: Kalea Bay Bld #2 To the Collier County Commissioners, I understand that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned citizen who is heavily involved in the construction industry as I work for Ferguson Enterprise which employees 700+associates(quality jobs+ benefits) in Florida in our plumbing division alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be directly affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. Ferguson is very involved in both our communities and by providing quality opportunities, as well as teaching, coaching,training, and furthering developing people's skills. Our industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Chris Brasher Ferguson a Wolseley Company Director of Branch Management- Florida District 10355 S Orange Ave. Orlando,Fl 32824 0: (407)856-5161 M: 239-823-0935 Ferguson Online -Always Open! http://www.ferqusononline.com 1 GrecoSherry From: Judi Palay <judi@palay.org> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 5:13 PM To: TaylorPenny; OchsLeo Cc: SolisAndy Subject: FW:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Attachments: TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay.pdf Per Attorney Klatskow,we are requesting a time certain for the Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay because our attorney has a conflict for the morning of July 11.Would you please help us to assure that we may have legal representation with time and date certain. Thank you- Judi Palay Note new email address please Judi Palay judi@palay.org 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Forwarded message From: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com> Date:Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM Subject:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: VelascoJessica <JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net>, SmithCamden <CamdenSmith(a@colliergov.net>, BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>, CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>, OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net>,AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Thank you Jeff Please find letter attached to County Manager and BCC Chair regarding a request for advance time certain (delivered per email below). Can you please deliver this letter to them via email because per the recent proposed Fla Bar rules, I would like to communicate through you on this matter and I do not have the email for the BCC Chair. PS- I am available July 11 after 1 pm and also available anytime July 12 the following day as you note may happen given the number of expected items on this agenda. Thanks again, Ralf Jeff Can you please provide me with assurance in writing in advance regarding not starting this item until I am able to be present on July 11th - I can be there anytime after 1 pm on July 11. I would prefer that the notice of hearing change 9:00 am to "1:00 pm or as soon thereafter as can be heard." [I also hope this would avoid confusion for the many citizens we expect to attend the hearing and allow them to comfortably arrive in the afternoon rather than be there all day in reliance on the official notice that they will read in the newpaper.] Also " "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" should be removed and replaced with "Notice of Intent to Consider an Administrative Appeal" Many thanks in advance, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone (239) 910-5464 Fax(866) 341-6086 RalfBrookes@Rmail.com Ralf@ RalfBrookesAttorney.com Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttorney.com On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 2:57 PM, SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>wrote: 3 Wanda Rodriguez, .ACP .Advanced Certified Paralegal- Office aralegal- Office of the County.Attorney (2,q)2S2-8400 From: Martha S.Vergara [mailto:Martha.Vergara@collierclerk.com] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 2:25 PM To: RodriguezWanda <WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net>; AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>; 'Velasco,' <Jessica@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay<RayBellows@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net> Subject: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Hello All, Attached is the revised ad proof per the petitioners changes. Let me know if there are any other changes. Thanks, Martha 0.4.901555. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 5 GrecoSherry From: OchsLeo Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 3:09 PM To: TaylorPenny Cc: WillerSpectorLee; CasalanguidaNick Subject: FW: Lodge Abbott Commissioner, Please find below the staff response to the concern expressed by Mr. Cressy. VR, Leo Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:54 PM To: David A. Cressy Cc: FrenchJames; WilkisonDavid; CasalanguidaNick; OchsLeo; ScavoneMichelle; McKennaJack Subject: RE: Lodge Abbott Mr. Cressy, Thanks for taking my return call earlier today to discuss the Kalea Bay Project. As we discussed on the phone, the developer has approved site permits to construct a golf course on their eastern parcel. In speaking with our County Engineer,Jack McKenna, his inspection team has confirmed that fill dirt material is being brought into the permitted Golf Course (SDP AR-5282) which has been planned for the Eastern parcel. His inspection team met with the contractor to confirm that the dump trucks require covered tarping when transporting loads. We appreciate your concerned call and hope that the additional information provided answers your raised concerns. Co $r County Matt McLean, P.E. Principal Project Manager Collier County Growth Management Department Development Review Division-Manager 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 1 GrecoSherry From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:07 PM To: Judi Palay; Donna Reed Carom;jodiebert@reagan.com; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Subject: Fwd: Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Is a Sham Now we've heard from Commissioners Nance and Henning. . . I'm betting we won't get a response from our District 2 Commissioner. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Forwarded message From: NanceTim <TimNance@colliergov.net> Date: Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:31 PM Subject: RE: Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Is a Sham To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: FlanaganJim<JimFlanagan@colliergov.net> Ms. Rupnow; I very clearly explained to area citizens, and in my public comments at the hearing, that this would occur. To expect that no development would happen on this property was simply wishful thinking on your part. You had an excellent proposal that would have preserved a great deal of beautiful and environmental property for ever. The proposed development of a few single family residences would have been the best situation. You objected and got what you asked for. I am sorry for Florida, not short sighted citizens. With Sincere Regrets at this completely predictable result, Tim Nance—District#5. 1 about a golf course IF they planned to build a golf course?(See screen shot of the text of the Kalea Bay amenities description in Attachment 2.) Recently I went to the Kalea Bay Sales office with a visitor from out-of-state who is truly interested in purchasing a condo on the gulf. During a 20 minute discussion, the Kalea Bay sales agent repeated three times that there are no plans to build a golf course with the Kalea Bay project. They have detailed pricing sheets to give to prospective buyers, but there is no mention of golf course memberships. From our perspective it is wrong for the county to allow this developer to extend an old 2004 golf course permit without providing updated and detailed plans regarding its design and estimated time of completion. True intent is the issue here. . . In 2015, he cleared two large portions of the land while building Tower 1. How much more of this land that is supposed to be retained as a preserve in its natural vegetative state will be destroyed in 2016-17 when Lodge Abbott breaks ground on Tower Two? Will there be anything left to preserve after he completes all five towers? This is just not right and we would like someone in county government to respond to our concerns and address this issue." Michelle Scavone sent me this reply: • "Thank you for your correspondence dated April 4, 2016. Staff has again reviewed the site progress and have not found any work which is inconsistent with the approved construction plans and zoning (settlement agreement). While staff understands your concern,Collier County Growth Management does not regulate promotional advertising of developments. As long as the developer continues to construct under the requirements of the approved permits,we have no ability to find fault with the current construction occurring on the subject site. In reference to your question regarding clearing limits related to the proposed tower buildings,attached is the Site Development Plan approval that identifies the location of the proposed towers along with the areas to remain as native/preserve. We appreciate your concerns related to this project. On behalf of Matt McLean, P.E., Principal Project Manager and Jack McKenna P.E., County Engineer Michelle Scavone, GMD Operations Coordinator Thank you again for reaching out to staff. 3 GrecoSherry From: WillerSpectorLee on behalf of TaylorPenny Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 11:22 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: FW: PUD in Naples Daily News Today: Protect Our Future From: jennifer.rupnow@gmail.com [mailto:jennifer.rupnow@gmail.com] On Behalf Of PreserveThePUD@gmail.com Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 4:43 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: PUD in Naples Daily News Today: Protect Our Future Letter: Protect our future 4:23 PM, Mar 23, 2015 letters to the editor Marilyn Stendahl,Naples Protect our future Three words stood out to me as I looked at the colliergov.net website. They come from the mission statement of guiding principles (values) for the Collier County commissioners. Knowledge: Please personally view the land whose future you will determine. It is the east parcel of the Cocohatchee Bay PUD on Vanderbilt Drive and Wiggins Pass Road. Contrast it to Kalea Bay, currently under development on the west parcel of the PUD. It is mostly barren in preparation for 10 or more years of constructing five high-rise condo buildings resulting in 582 luxury waterfront units added to this coastal high hazard flood area. Stewardship: This east parcel is one of the few remaining natural habitats and preserves in this area. Careful and responsible management of this natural resource is effectively entrusted to your care. Our hope is for it to remain a natural resource. Accountability: Please hold Lodge/Abbott accountable to the terms of the 2008 court settlement agreeing to leave the east parcel of the PUD "forever as green open space" if the then-proposed golf course was not built on that land. In exchange, extra units were allowed to be added to the five high rise-buildings on the west parcel of the PUD. Now the developer proposes to build an additional 62 units on the east parcel. Those units already have been added to the west parcel in the 2008 settlement agreement. Commissioners, as elected chief legislators of Collier County, and our representatives, please do not open this settlement. 1 RALF BROOKES, ATTORNEY Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law June 15, 2017 Re: TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay "Notice of Intent to Consider an Administrative Appeal" - JUDITH S.PALAY AND 92 OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN COCOHATCHEE BAY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITIES,FILED AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF BUILDING SEPARATIONS, BUILDING WIDTHS,BUILDING DWELLING UNITS,AND BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SDPA-120160002242 FOR KALEA BAY... Dear County Manager and BCC Chair Penny Taylor (c/o County Attorney): Please find this request for an advanced time certain of 1 pm (or as soon thereafter as can be heard) for an upcoming July 11, 2017 or anytime on July 12 because: • I am not able to attend in the morning, but can be there anytime after 1 pm; • We expect that many of the 92 appellants will attend in person and more interested citizens will also be in attendance and we would like to minimize the amount of time that is spent waiting for the item to be heard when seats are needed for other persons attending other items on the agenda during morning hours; • Some of the appellants and interested citizens are flying in to RSW specifically to attend the hearing from out of state and will be arriving on morning flights. Thank you for considering our request for a time certain for this administrative appeal in advance. Best regards, /s/ Ralf Brookes Attorney Attorney for the 93 Appellants 6111 CERTIF ED FIcsida Bar pr. N LOC LGWE�MIENT Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral, Fl 33904 Phone (239) 910-5464; fax (866) 341-6086 RalfBrookes@gmail.com 1 GrecoSherry From: TaylorPenny Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 8:34 PM To: WillerSpectorLee Subject: Fwd: Preserve The PUD; preserve the land. Penny Taylor Commissioner-Elect, District 4 3299 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-7447 Begin forwarded message: From: Patricia Massey<amassey@alum.mit.edu> Date: March 30, 2015 at 6:33:09 PM EDT To: TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net> Subject: Preserve The PUD; preserve the land. Reply-To: "amassey@alum.mit.edu" <amassey@alum.mit.edu> Dear Ms. Taylor, Thanks for your support on March 24th and your vote not to rezone the Lodge Abbot land, Kalea Bay, on Vanderbilt Drive, east. The decision ended a long fought battle on the language in the County Settlement Agreement of 2008. Our trust in government is reinforced by your vote. We know that this is just a battle in a war that can erupt again, but for now the land will remain green open space. Alan and Patricia Massey 14668 Glen Eden Drive 239-591-4862 1 GrecoSherry From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 10:12 PM To: Andy Solis For Collier Campaign Cc: TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; McDanielBill; Ralf Brookes; BertSaunders@colliergov.net Subject: Golf Course Conversion Amendment Dear Commissioner Solice, Neither Judi Palay nor I will be able to attend the March 14, 2017 BCC meeting regarding the Golf Course Conversion Amendment. You are aware of our concerns that the Cocohatchee Bay PUD developer will somehow attempt to use the Golf Course Conversion Document to facilitate the rezoning of the "Golf Course Parcel"to residential. On January 19, 2017 I attended the Planning Commission meeting and expressed my request that language be included in the document that would limit its implementation ONLY to golf courses that were FULLY CONSTRUCTED AND IN BUSINESS prior to the the April 12, 1016 moratorium on golf course conversions. As your District 2 constituent, I ask that you consider adding that language to the Golf Course Conversion Amendment to restrict its usage to those golf courses for whom it was intended. Thank you! Diane Rupnow Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 1 GrecoSherry From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,April 19, 2017 4:52 PM To: OchsLeo Cc: KlatzkowJeff;TaylorPenny; Ralf Brookes; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; Carl Stendahl; David Cressy Subject: Confirmation Dear Mr. Ochs, This message will confirm our meeting with you on April 28th at 11:00. Even though I will be unable to attend in person, I hope to be able to join the meeting via phone. Carl Stendhal and David Cressy from Glen Eden and Brad Schiffer and Donna Reed Caron will be there to meet with you and are totally aware of our issues and concerns. Jeff Klatzkow just informed me that he will also be attending that meeting so I have informed our attorney, Ralf Brooks of the date and time to see if he can also attend. Commissioner Taylor's assistant called me this morning with the message that "no further changes would be approved for Kalea Bay without input from neighbors." I take that to mean that you have directed County staff to not move forward with approval of the amendment for Buildings 2--5 which is currently under their review AND that neighbors will be notified and have a chance to discuss our concerns regarding proposed changes in a public meeting. Please confirm that my understanding is correct. Thank you. Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 1 GrecoSherry From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:19 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: County"staff" Dear Commissioner Taylor, Building five Kalea Bay towers 310' wide and only 100' apart is going to have a direct and observable negative impact on all of us FOREVER. I find it troubling that important decisions are made by County"staff'with complete anonymity and; therefore, no accountability or recourse. . . Since the separation of high-rise buildings is important to the ambience of an entire community, could we obtain a written review of the staff process to allow the administrative reduction to one half of the intended minimum separation? Also, we would like to know what staff members are responsible for the administrative review on this issue. Thank you! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 1 GrecoSherry From: Aris Dougherty <adougherty1530@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:19 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: KALEA BAY 2 Hello, My name is Aris Dougherty, I reside in Collier County and work in the construction industry. My job will be directly affected in a very negative way if Kalea Bay 2 is halted. I don't understand why anyone wants to hold back Naples' growth and economy. Please consider the hundreds of people that will be affected if this project is halted. Thank you very much for your consideration, Aris Dougherty Naples, FL 1 GrecoSherry From: Jessica Judd <jessicajudd@crsmithllc.com> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:54 AM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.neT; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: Kalea Bay Bid #2 Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.tiff To the Collier County Commissioners, I have just been informed that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned Naples local (over 31 years in Naples and two generations before) who is heavily involved in the construction industry as I work for C.R. Smith which contracts and manages over 50+ subcontractors that employ hundreds of workers in Florida in our contracting alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank you for your time! Jessica Judd Assistant to Chad Smith/Office Manager lessicajudd@crsmithllc.com P: (239) 596-8003 F: 239.288.0575 C.A. SMITH. LLC C[7N8TRwGT+QN 1 GrecoSherry From: Charlie Bauman <Charlie@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:47 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Ron Bowling; Nancy Farnsworth Subject: Kalea Bay Building #2 Dear Collier County Commissioners, I am currently an employee of Acres and Son Plumbing, Inc. , a Collier County company for some 40 years. I have worked for Acres and Son Plumbing for over 8 of the past 15 years. I personally worked at the Kalea Bay job site full time as an assistant project manager from 04/01/16 until 12/31/16. Presently our staff at Kalea Bay site is only 20%of what it was because Building#2 has not yet started. Acres and Son Plumbing has already been negatively impacted because Building#2 has not started. If building 2 is not constructed,Acres will be even more seriously harmed as will my work with the company. In addition to Acres, many other subcontractors are being negatively affected. Hundreds of construction industry jobs are at risk if Kalea Bay Building#2 and further buildings are not allowed to be constructed. I sincerely ask for your consideration to allow the construction of Building #2 and further buildings at Kalea Bay to proceed. Thank you for your consideration. Kind Regards, Charlie Bauman Acres&Son Plumbing, Inc. 5701 Houchin Street, Suite 1 Naples, FL 34109 239-597-5031 Cell 239-734-0804 Charlie@acresplumbing.com 1 GrecoSherry From: Kevin Jensen <kevin@jensenunderground.com> Sent: Sunday,July 2, 2017 2:19 PM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.neT'; 'PennyTaylor@colliergov.net; 'BurtSaunders@colliergov.net'; 'AndySolis@colliergov.net; 'DonnaFiala@colliergov.net Subject: Kalea Bay Buildings#2,3,4,5 Dear Collier County Commissioners, I understand that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned business owner who is heavily involved in the Kalea Bay project.This project has been on our books for over a year and in our projection of work for our employees. If this project were to be cancelled it would put a hardship on Jensen Underground Utilities, therefore possibly causing layoffs within our company. We currently employ 95 wonderful people who have families. Not only do we provide a pay check to our employees,we also provide 100% health insurance coverage. Many of the employees purchase health insurance for their families through their hard work a pay checks that they have earned. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Jensen Underground Utilities is very involved in both our communities and by providing quality opportunities, as well as teaching, coaching,training, and furthering developing people's skills. Our industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank You For Your Consideration, Kevin Jensen JENSEN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, INC. 5585 Taylor Rd. Naples, FL 34109 239-597-0060 Ext. 5 239-597-0061—Fax 239-825-1638—Cell Email: Kevin@jensenunderground.com Website: www.jensenunderground.com 1 GrecoSherry From: Teena Cowan <cowankt@cogeco.ca> Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 8:32 PM To: TaylorPenny;JeffKlatzkov@colliergov.net; OchsLeo; SolisAndy; DonnaFialla@colliergov.net; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Condos I am writing to express concern about the proposed development of buildings 2-5 of Kalea Bay. From the beginning we were concerned with how this would impact the area as we live at Gulfbreeze and are impacted by the sight of the building and proposed buildings. Too many and too big. Now we learn that they violated the regulations when building the first building. How typical of the developer to disregard the rules . We watched a displaced eagle as they started to bulldoze the area. I understand they have donated land or money?to help build the bicycle trail on Vanderbilt Drive. I hope that was not a pay off to do what they want and to get approval for buildings 2-5. Please limit the building of this far too large complex. Sincerely, Teena & Ken Cowan 21 Bluebill Ave. 602 Naples, Florida 1 GrecoSherry From: Ira Rubenstein <irar@me.com> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 3:48 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Development Dear Commissioner, We are full time residents at 445 Cove Tower Dr in Wiggins Bay Community and are very concerned about the continuing development and what seems like runaway growth in our community. The volume of traffic pressures on our infrastructure and yes, the view on the waterfront will be severely affected by the building of the towers known as Kalea Bay along Vanderbilt Drive. I urge you to vote against any changes in the approved plans for these towers that would increase the size of these structures and allow them to be closer to each other. Thank you for your consideration. Ira S. Rubenstein 445 Cove Tower Dr Apt 903 Naples FL 34110 239-597-3141 845-341-3099 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 GrecoSherry From: Laraine D. <latkeleah@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 7:18 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Kalea Bay non compliance The Settlement Agreement and PUD must be upheld per the agreement. Why should this developer break all of the rules each time he makes another development- yet the rights of hundreds and maybe thousands of citizens don't count? Please do your job and protect us. Stewardship, Laraine Deutsch Naples 1 GrecoSherry From: John Wilkinson <John@sunmasterinc.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 3:10 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay To whom it may concern, I am a business owner that employs approx. 50 people Our company is heavily reliant on the construction industry for our living. Projects like Kalea Bay are the lifeblood of our revenue. So when we hear about a project such as Kalea Bay it allows us to more confidently invest in other areas of our economy as consumers. I have lived my whole life (48 years) in Naples so I do understand the idea of pushback against new developments such as this. But typically it doesn't come from natives, it comes from folks that took advantage moving into past developments that some may have been opposed to when they were going in. It makes me shake my head when I think about the "close the door behind me" mentality that happens. As I understand it the Kalea Bay development of 5 condo buildings has already been cleared but there are those who are trying to have it stopped. I sincerely hope you all take into consideration the trickle down effect that will happen if you stop the movement forward of this project. We are a small company but at least 1/3 of my people are currently involved with the workings of this project.Their jobs may not exist without it. When I go to jobsite meetings I see hundreds of people being employed on this site that again would be unemployed if it is shut down. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please make the right choice for us. Sincerely, John Wilkinson President Sunmaster of Naples 900 Industrial Blvd Naples, FL 34104 239-261-3581 ofc. 239-261-7499 fax. 239-253-4773 cell. www.sunmasterinc.com 1 GrecoSherry From: pureplumbingl4 <pureplumbing14@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:00 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Kalea Bay To the Collier County Commissioners, I have just been informed that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned Naples Resident/Business Owner, whom is heavily involved in the construction industry. I work for C.R. Smith, LLC., which contracts and manages over 50+ subcontractors that employ hundreds of workers in Florida in our contracting alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company, but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates. All the outlying businesses that are affected by the construction as well as the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years. It is encouraging to see and be part of a positive growing economy. Thank you for your time!" Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone 1 GrecoSherry From: Ron Bowling <ron@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:23 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Dear Collier County Commissioners, I wanted to send my personal concerns in reference to possible delays in the construction of the next building at the Kalea Bay project. I work for a plumbing company that is currently working on the Kalea Bay project.With the planned start of building#2 we are able to keep our staffing working anticipating the next building to start. If it does not,there will be layoffs due to lack of work. I personally have struggled as many others for the last 8 to 9 years trying to survive the hardships in the most drastic down turn in construction this area has seen. It was a long, slow recovery and we are just now becoming hopeful in our futures in the construction trade and regaining some ground. I am very sensitive in concern with growth and over-development and believe our local government has found a balance for everyone in my personal experience of living herefor over 40 years. I was fond of the Wiggins Pass area in the 70's when there was little more than a Marina and some small developments. That is not the case these days and much of that area is built on and believe the very people complaining reside in the adjacent areas probably have not been here for very many years. Nor do they likely reside here year round or earn a living here. Kalea Bay has already been approved and site developed for the future construction of these buildings.The potential opportunities for our working residents and the revenue to local business will be felt county wide and will effect hundreds upon hundreds of the collier working class and business owner residents. Please represent us in allowing this building to proceed as planned. Our livelihoods are counting on you. Sincerely, Ron Bowling Acres&Son Plumbing Inc. 5701 Houchin St Suite#1 Naples, Fl 34109 Office 239-597-5031 Fax 239-597-3740 ron@acresplumbing.com www.acresplumbing.com 1 GrecoSherry From: Rene Acres-Hatch <Rene@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:54 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Kalea Bay Penny Taylor, I am writing to express my concerns for halting the construction of Kalea Bay 2. I have resided in Naples for over 48 years and have been employed in the construction industry for over 30 years. Tourism is our industry here in Naples and construction is a large part of what keeps Naples growing to accommodate the new comers in our area. Halting the progress of Kalea Bay would have impacts on several areas that should be of concern to ALL Naples residents, not just the few in Glen Eden who might have their view obstructed. Glen Eden should take into consideration that they were entitled to develop their community without opposition from others in the area. Please know the decision that you make concerning this project will set precedence for all future projects and will affect the employment of hundreds of construction workers. I am asking that you please honor your approval of the development of Kalea Bay. Sincerely, Rene' Rene'Acres-3-Catch R Acres Plumbing Co LLC 1911 Seward Ave, Suite 3 Naples, FL. 34109 PH: 239-598-0800 FX: 239-597-1590 Rene@acresplumbing.com ID - ACRES PLUMBING �" t• � ---` ` 0 r'•'0 • 24 HOUR EMERGENCY SERVICE Website Like us on Facebook 1 GrecoSherry From: CasalanguidaNick Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 11:43 AM To: TaylorPenny Cc: OchsLeo; KlatzkowJeff; StrainMark Subject: Kalea Bay setback reduction Importance: High Commissioner, I apologize for not getting this to you sooner. I spoke with Mark and Leo, but have yet to speak with Jeff. The application is being considered in the same manner as has been historically done throughout Pelican Bay. The administrative reduction was discussed as part of approvals. Should the neighborhood challenge the administrative reduction,this most likely would be heard by the full Board. After reviewing the site plan and documents, I can find no reason for staff to not grant this approval.The towers are all over 100' apart. I believe the code is one half of the sum of the heights.Assuming about 350/2=175,the reductions are not unreasonable. Additionally and importantly,the approximate locations were shown as part of the settlement review. That said, I will let them complete their review and make their findings. Should there be an appeal, I would suggest that we have a follow-up to provide you some history and discuss the potential ramifications. Respectfully, Nick Casalanguida Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@Colliergov.net 239-252-8383 Attached are the relevant pages from the PUD (which is part of the SA). FDF Pages from Settlement Agre... Attached is page one of Brook's letter. FDF Pages from Ralf's Letter to Co... Attached is one page of dimensions from SDP 2"d submittal. (The distances are highlighted, note the garages are not the same as the towers, historically they have not been.) 1 GrecoSherry From: Linda Crowe <linda.crowe@progressivewaste.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 1:55 PM To: "BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net; FialaDonna; SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt Subject: Kalea Bay Tower#2 Importance: High To Collier County Commissioners, I am very disappointed there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. As an informed resident of Southwest Florida and who is heavily involved in the construction and real estate industry, it's unfortunate to hear of opposition to growth within our community. Not only am a licensed Real Estate Agent, I also am fortunate enough to be employed by Waste Connections,who provides hauling and disposal services on construction sites. Kalea Bay Building#1 has not only provided a significant employment opportunity for construction workers who work and live within our community; but has also benefited Southwest Florida by attracting affluent residents who have purchased condominiums in Tower 1. The benefits this project brings within our community reaches far beyond today. It supports our community for many years down the road by the jobs it creates to operate Kalea Bay and the opportunity it brings for outlying existing businesses as well as future business opportunities. The increase in tax revenue for Collier County should also be an important topic not be overlooked. We want to look for future growth and opportunity in Southwest Florida and opposing the second phase of Kalea Bay does not support our local industry of construction, tourism/snowbirds, and real estate markets. Hundreds of companies and probably an estimated thousand workers would be directly affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. The real estate and construction market has went through some very tough times and to stop the second phase of Kalea Bay would be going backwards. It is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy considering what we have been through. I hope that we can continue to grow as a community and every one of whose who work and live within this community can prosper and enjoy the life Southwest Florida has to offer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Linda Crowe I Territory Manager Waste Connections,Inc. 2289 Bruner Lane, Fort Myers, FL 33912 0:239-489-1716 I F:239-489-1652 I C:239-229-5473 111. WASTE CONNECT rI0NS.INC, C, .r with the F,,nm' 1 GrecoSherry From: Ross Baiera <rjbaiera06@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 11:56 AM To: SolisAndy; FialaDonna; BurtSanders@colliergov.net; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Towers Site Development Attachments: Scan0018 jpg Commissioners, Please read the attachment. We are presently not at our Florida residence and can't attend the local hearings. Thank you. Ross J. Baiera for Ross J. and Patricia A. Baiera 1 i I I i I GrecoSherry From: Jim & Kitty Shaw <jikisoc@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,April 12, 2017 11:39 AM To: TaylorPenny; GrecoSherry Subject: Kalea Bay Towers Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed To:Penny Taylor, During the Public Comment portion of the April 11 BCC meeting,a graphical depiction was presented showing a to-scale representation of the height,width and spacing of the proposed five towers at Kalea Bay.When I saw that depiction,a red flag popped up in my mind.During my engineering career,I worked with a design team creating complex medical diagnostic systems.Part of the development process,required by FDA,is called"Hazard Analysis".During HA,a multi-discipline team picks apart the entire system design looking for hidden,unintended consequences that could lead to disastrous events.This is a lengthy,rigorous and painful process,but extremely effective.It caused me to wonder if this process was considered when the towers became taller,wider and closer together. Anyone who has walked the streets of NY City on a windy day can attest to the"wind tunnel effect".This occurs when moving air hits tall, closely spaced buildings and is funneled through the space between the buildings,increasing wind velocity and causing turbulence.This attached article explains wind tunnel effect in greater detail:http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/the-pulse/79275-the-science-of- wind-tunnels-where-and-why-those-harsh-winds-strike-Given that we are situated in an area prone to tropical storms with high wind velocities,and the tower"wall"faces the brunt of powerful on-shore winds,and given that many Kalea Bay residents may have mobility challenges,the recent"tweaks"to buildings'width and separation may have unintentionally created a potential future hazard to many tower residents. I am not aware of any tower complex in the Naples area with building dimensions and spacing similar to that of the Kalea Bay plan.If there are no comparable complexes from which to draw conclusions as to wind safety,and there is no study to show the recent plan changes do not create a hazard,should the CCB then require the developer to conduct a wind effect study?After all,if the current development plan is approved without such a study,and a wind-caused injury occurs,does the County share in the responsibility for that injury? Thank you, James D Shaw 841 Carrick Bend Cir.#201 Naples,FL 34110 Other relevant link:http://www.iawe.org/Proceedings/5EACWE/092.pdf 1 GrecoSherry From: Arturo Guido <aguido@legnobastone.com> Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 10:53 AM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay "To the Collier County Commissioners, "To the Collier County Commissioners, It has recently been brought to our attention that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned local Naples, Florida businessman who owns and operates a five-generation small business headquartered in Naples, Florida.We are extremely involved in the construction industry as we are a small sub-contractor that works directly for C.R. Smith. We are a boutiques manufacturing company with approximately 50 employees directly linked to the Kalea Bay project. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. The Kalea Bay project is a significant element to our business and crucial to the employees that are directly employed because of the Kalea Bay project. No to mention the monetary impact it will also have on all their families. Our company and our employees will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. It would be shameful to post pone the progress of this already approved project and negatively impact tens of thousands of families for the sake of a few. Thank you for your time!" Please consider the environment when printing this email.As a company deeply invested in wood,we appreciate your efforts to maintain a world with healthy forests and prudent environmental stewardship.Thank you! Gegno Bastone Wide PlankElooring "Custom Designed Furniture for'Your Floor" 2684 7forseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 (0)239-206-1898 c#13 Xegno glCone WIDE PLANK FLOORING Disclaimer Notice The E-Mail and the information contained in it and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged.If you received this email in error please notify us immediately.You are not authorized to,and must not disclose,copy,distribute or retain this E-Mail or any part of it. We have taken precautions to lower the risk of transmitting software viruses,but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on this message and any attachment to it.Neither Legno Bastone nor the sender can accept liability or responsibility for any damage or any loss whatsoever caused by the transmission of any virus. All statements are made WITHOUT PREJUDICE and all offers are made SUBJECT TO CONTRACT within 45 days of quote. 1 GrecoSherry From: Barbara High <bcjh1234@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 12:51 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Kalea Bay How was this place given permission to build towers with 24 stories isn't there a limit of 20....so much for that area looking beautiful and picturesque....remember when we said that we didn't want the West coast to look like the East coast....ha....no more. Doesn't the county have any say or even care...what happens in what used to be a beautiful part of Collier? Barbara High Sent from my iPad GrecoSherry From: Gregory.Bennett@Ferguson.com Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:23 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Collier county team, My name is Greg Bennett and I work at Ferguson Enterprises. I have been a part of the Kalea project for the past 5 years. I mainly work on multifamily and have got to spend time in high rises both on our side and the other coast. There is nothing that represents Naples better than Kalea Bay. The project is unlike anything else in the state. It's a high level project, that has the quality and look that all of our northern friends are seeking. Many of the clients are also local Naples people looking for a second home. I know many of the buyers and can't explain their excitement to move in. These are people coming for weeks at a time. From a personal level, the stoppage of work would have a major effect on the economy and my family. My company alone has forecasted this work and planned accordingly. Many people have been hired and trained to service this job as we should. We have based things on feedback from sales. I am Estero residence who has a huge desire to move to Naples. I work in Naples, go to church at North Naples and mainly dine down south. My wife asks me every day when we can move. Projects like Kalea keep our dreams alive of being able to make the move down. We are younger(35 years old)with 3 kids. Naples schools for high school is what we want. I can't explain how many estero/fort myers friends of mine have the same dream to get down. Projects like Kalea provide the income to achieve this. Yes there are over 300 people on the project but there are a ton more behind the scenes. From the distributers to the designers, we would all be hurt from any stoppage. We are the people who are here year round spending money while others are gone. We are the future leaders of our community. Nothing represents Naples better than Kalea bay. Thanks for your time, Gregory Bennett Builder Sales Ferguson,a Wolseley Company 38 Goodlette-Frank Rd, Naples Fl 34102 USA 0:239-963-0080 C:239-872-2713 gregory.bennett@ferguson.com 1 GrecoSherry From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:11 PM To: TaylorPenny Cc: Ralf Brookes;Judi Palay Subject: Letter from our Attorney Dear Commissioner Taylor, Thank you for meeting with Judi Palay and me last Wednesday. Since then, we have met with Commissioners Fiala, Solice and Saunders.None of them had been given the letter our attorney, Ralf Brookes sent to the County via the County Attorney. Fortunately, we also set up meetings with County Commissioners to provide relevant information.. . I would guess that Mr. Klatzkow gave our attorney's letter to the County Manager and his assistant who may have shared it with Chris Scott and Mike Bosie.Neither Mr. Klatzkow nor Mr. Ochs nor anyone in County Planning has responded to our Attorney or us regarding our concerns. If you have had time to read pp 46--66 of the transcript of the January 11, 2008 Planning Commissioners meeting, you know that some Planning Commissioners wanted to inform County Commissioners about the troubling county staff interpretation of footnote 3 which has lead to the unlimited administrate reductions we take issue with today. I seriously doubt if Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Fiala would have agreed to the Settlement Agreement if they thought the developer could enlarge the diameter of the buildings by 50' and put them as close together as he wanted. I find it troubling that the County Commissioners were circumvented then and continue to be circumvented today. During our conference call with Mike Bosi, he suggested that we, the people upset by the drastic changes that have been made to SDP's, should meet with the builder. That is analogous to a police officer ringing my doorbell and telling me there's a burglar in my back yard and I should go take care of it. The County Attorney suggested that we file an"Administrative Appeal" so that the issues can be openly discussed at a County Commissioners' meeting.Now that we have given our attorney's letter to four of the Commissioners and will give it to the fifth one at a scheduled March 20th meeting, I wonder if County Commissioners could choose to put this on an upcoming meeting's agenda without us having to file an appeal? I apologize that I don't know the process for making your agendas. . . If you feel it would do any good for us to file an Administrative Appeal and get this on an upcoming agenda, we will begin fund raising to pay the filing fees. Sincerely, Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 1 GrecoSherry From: Daniel Fusco <twcfusco@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 11:50 AM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay opposition Attachments: image1.jpeg; ATT00001.txt Hello, Just a quick note in regards to the petition against phase 2 of Kalea Bay. I am the owner/operator of Woodworkers Cabinet of Naples, Inc and we work closely with CR Smith and his team to manufacture custom cabinetry and millwork for his clients. We have grown our company to over 30 employees and we primarily service CR Smith and the Kalea Bay project. We have recently purchased a second location down the street from our current shop on Taylor Rd. to enable us to keep up with the needs of the Kalea project and we are extremely excited for the remaining phases of this development. Please consider the impact on the families who are counting on this project for years to come and will need this to help pay for their kids college. (I have 5 of them!) Thank you and we appreciate our beautiful town and all the opportunities it offers to the trades people! Sincerely, Daniel Fusco 1 GrecoSherry From: scott@amssoundandvision.com Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:28 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Cc: chadrsmith@me.com; marc@amssoundandvision.com; gsrichter@aol.com; jessicajudd@crsmithllc.com Subject: Kalea Bay project To the Collier County Commissioners, I am and have been a Naples resident since 1990. I have seen Naples grow from the small town to a larger town with that small town atmosphere. It is where I enjoy to live and therefore where I set up my family and my business. It pains me to hear that there is opposition to projects, specifically the Kalea Bay project. I understand what it is like to have construction go on next door and although it is a little annoying, it will pass and Naples is better for it. It is promising to our community when homes are built. It creates confidence in community, business, and family life! What better way to increase the value and the operation of our county than welcoming those who are willing to invest in its future! I am an owner of a small company that is involved with the Kalea Bay project. We are a small fish in the pond of contractors working on this project. I cannot speak for them, but we have added staff to our company, invested in advertising, business expansion, and showroom enhancements to provide for the potential 600+families that will call Kalea Bay and Naples, Fl their home. I can only make the assumption that the other companies have made similar investments. It takes a lot of people to build a community and even more to staff the location when it is complete. I would ask that you do not make any changes to these employees source of income or provide more stress for companies in the workforce by delaying the project. Our company and our employees families will be directly affected by the decisions you make. I appreciate your time. If you feel the need to reach out to me about my thoughts on this project,feel free to do so. Best Regards, Scott Moore AMS Sound &Vision Owner 1 ATT00001 Daniel Fusco Woodworker's Cabinet of Naples 6189 Taylor Rd. Naples, FL 34109 239-593-1718 www.woodworkersnaples.com Page 1 GrecoSherry From: Teale Mueller <tealemueller@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 11:59 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners, My name is Teale Mueller. I am a sales associate and team member that has been instrumental in the day to day sales process of the Kalea Bay Community. I have also been involved in general real estate in Collier County for years. Our team has been involved with so many aspects of representing this wonderful Kalea Bay community and has been immersed in assisting not only our Kalea Bay buyers, but also providing information to and fostering relationships with hundreds of our Collier County full time and seasonal residents who have visited our site.. I am in a position to see the excitement of our future Kalea Bay residents, many who have worked,planned and saved over many years to be in a position to fulfill their dream of living in a community such as Kalea Bay. Another great aspect of being involved in this project is that I have also had the opportunity to see that hundreds of local men and women from many different companies/trades are proudly invested in the employment opportunities a project like Kalea Bay creates. From cleaners, to landscapers, construction workers, designers, material suppliers, cooperating realtors all who have benefited and have been able to provide a better quality of life for themselves and their families. Sometimes our society highlights and amplifies the negative opinions of a few people. This is unfortunate. I believe we all have a responsibility to open our eyes and ears to all of the good and opportunity a project like Kalea Bay presents to so many in our community. Kalea Bay will have such a positive impact in supporting our current and future local economy. There is no doubt that this unique and beautiful community will improve the lives of many for years to come. I thank you for your time and consideration, —rale Mueller Sales Associate Wilson 6, Associates 1391,0 Olci Cara t Road Naples, ft_ "110 235)-79)_0110 Co) 2)9A- -i-£o6 4.=d TealeMuelteragmaii.unn \AN Wilson Associates GrecoSherry From: Brian Dollard <briandollardrce@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 1:13 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Project To the Collier County Commissioners, It has been brought to my attention there is opposition to the development of the Kalea Bay Project by a few surrounding neighbors. Let me start by saying I am a 41 year Resident of Naples, I have been in the construction business for 38 years. I have seen all the changes from Ft. Myers to Marco Island. The construction industry here is 2nd to none for quality of job and the tradesman that build them.We are a vital part of our communities. From purchasing our own properties and creating commerce with other businesses and industries.Also by creating a better tax base for our State and local Government. I currently employ roughly 50 tradesman for our company. Local men and women who have families to provide and support.The Kalea bay Project is vital to my family and my employees families to live a quality life here in Southwest Florida. In this situation with the opposition opinion, it's a shame that a few who have their dwelling in the this location are opposed to those who would like a dwelling in the same location. ( this makes no sense).The Kalea Bay project is the most beautiful thought out resort style community that I have been involved with and the privilege to work on. The construction Industry has been in some tough times as of late,just the past year or so we have been coming out of a serious slow down due to the financial crisis.All the people involved are starting to live a better life and contribute to the community in a more vigor way. If this project was delayed or stopped because of the few who only have their own interest in mind and not the greater good of the community it would be another hardship on the construction industry and the people involved. My company and its employees would certainly feel hardship in their lives. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Best regards to all of you. Brian Brian Dollard briandollardree@gmail.com RCE Contractors, Inc 3884 Progress Ave Naples, FL 34104 239-643-5758-Office 239-825-1532- Cell 239-643-6772-Fax CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is only for the person(s) named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail. 1 GrecoSherry From: Ngh0031 <ngh0031@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:58 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: KALEA BAY SDPA I reside in Glen Eden on the Lakes. The Kalea Bay project is under construction on Vanderbilt Drive in North Naples, with the first tower almost complete and the remaining four towers to be built. A Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) is currently under review by Collier Planning, showing buildings with a separation between buildings that would be one-half the required minimum distance (i.e., a separation of 100 feet measured between towers, and 72 feet measured between parking structures). It is also our understanding that the first tower is at least 50 feet wider than the approved SDP. If the remaining towers were to be built as proposed in the SDPA, the results would be a huge concrete barrier to light and air and view. On April 11th, a group of concerned citizens living in the Vanderbilt Drive area attended a Board of County Commissioners meeting to express concerns over these proposed revisions to the approved plans. Sixteen residents signed up to speak during the Public Comment portion of the meeting. After hearing the first speaker, the County Attorney advised the Board that no further public comments on this issue should be allowed. The rationale given was that procedure required that the Site Development Plan Amendment be approved by staff, after which an administrative appeal could be filed. In our opinion, a review and decision on the Site Development Plan Amendment as submitted should not be left solely to staff, but should be considered in a public hearing before the full Board of County Commissioners to allow input and discussion from all parties. These changes are significant, impactful and would be detrimental to all aspects of this area of Vanderbilt drive. We respectfully ask that a public hearing on this issue be held. Henry & Barbara Taylor 14599 Glen Eden Drive Naples, Fl. 34110 1 GrecoSherry From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 9:32 AM To: TaylorPenny; GrecoSherry Subject: Our meeting today at 1:00 Good Morning Commissioner Taylor and Ms. Greco, I am looking forward to our meeting today at 1:00 and appreciate the opportunity to be heard. There will be 13 of us coming to the meeting today: Pat Bonser, Carl and Marilyn Stendhal, Barb and Mike Taylor, Peggy Ross and myself from Glen Eden on the Lakes; Jim and Kitty Shaw from Tarpon Cove; and Lou De Prisco and Dick Wilson from Arbor Trace. Brad Schiffer and Donna Reed Caron are also coming with us. Some of those who had signed up to speak last Tuesday have already headed north. . . We are going to gather outside at 12:45 and enter together. We will not fit into that small room on the 1st floor where we are supposed to check in and get approval before coming upstairs. I was wondering if I could call you directly and get permission to come up or could you somehow facilitate this for us?? I have some photos on my laptop that I would like to show Commissioner Taylor and I was wondering if you have the technology in place to allow them to be projected on a TV or screen or wall so all in our group could see. Thank you. Please call with your response to my questions. Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@a,gmail.com 402 580-1545 1 GrecoSherry From: Jim & Kitty Shaw <jikisoc@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 5:10 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: PLEASE VOTE NO Dear Commissioner Taylor, We strongly urge you to not vote to open the 2008 settlement in order to expand the approved Kalea Bay development by adding 62 homes on the "golf course" PUD property. We have listened to and agree with the various concerns voiced by surrounding communities and environmental conservancy groups. We have been residents of the Barbados VII neighborhood in the Tarpon Cove community for 5 years. We own one of 22 homes which currently enjoy an expansive preserve view that looks westward toward the projected PUD development of 62 homes. Many of us purchased our homes because of this view and were confident based on the 2008 Settlement Agreement that the view would change little as a golf course or green space. We discovered to our surprise at the February 26 meeting that the 100-foot buffer between that development and residences in Tarpon Cove would not extend to the Barbados VII neighborhood and northward. The developer felt that since there was already a Tarpon Cove preserve greater than 100 feet in depth he did not need to add more. What he overlooked was that that area of the preserve is composed of tall slash pines, low scrub, cypress trees and some open clearings. We can see through to the PUD land year round, but from December through March, when the cypress and other deciduous trees shed their leaves, there is view of the PUD minimally obstructed by tall, narrow tree trunks. Furthermore, there is an ongoing, county-mandated invasive plant removal in progress in the Tarpon Cove preserves that will further reduce the vegetative cover. We will be able to see their homes clearly and vice versa. There will be sound and light pollution which will impact the serenity and beauty of our preserve. Another of our concerns for Tarpon Cove is the increased potential for flooding especially in the Cayman community. We are also concerned for the surrounding communities because the water quality in the Cocohatchee estuary will be further degraded by this increased development. Data collected and published from 2002 to present confirms previous findings that the Cocohatchee estuary is already impaired for bacteria and nutrient pollution and concentrations. This impacts the fisheries and recreational use of the waters. Currently large volumes of stormwater runoff from both Lee and Collier counties run through Tarpon Cove community via a canal carrying polluted stormwater. At times of high levels of flow, water floods into the "golf course" PUD property which serves as a sponge. The storm water is released slowly from the land and is cleansed of some of the contamination in the process . Once the PUD property is filled and developed it will no longer retain and cleanse flood water and will itself become a source of additional pollution. From any angle, it appears to us that the only beneficiary of opening the PUD agreement, is the developer, not Collier County and the residents in the North Naples communities. 1 GrecoSherry From: cjhulce@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 1:54 PM To: FialaDonna; GeorgiaHiler@colliergov.net; HenningTom;TamiHenning@colliergov.net; TaylorPenny; NanceTim Subject: Preserve the Cocohatchee Bay Preserve: A Deal is a Deal How arrogant is Lodge Abbot that they think they can somehow (?) unsign the 2008 agreement with Collier County, and why do they have any reason to believe that agreement is no longer in effect after seven years? We live right next door to the Kalea Bay development which is springing out of the ground and causing Immokolee Road, Wiggins Pass and Vanderbilt Drive to be loaded with traffic! Lodge Abbot should not be allowed to develop that kind of density West of Vanderbilt (agreed to as a part of the 2008 agreement)and turn around and disagree/renegotiate the other side of it! A deal is a deal. Please, let's not spend any more taxpayer dollars helping them to further line their pockets and get away with lying and deception. Carol Hulce 435 Dockside Drive#402, Naples, FL 34110 GrecoSherry From: Patricia Massey <amassey@alum.mit.edu> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:33 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Preserve The PUD; preserve the land. Dear Ms. Taylor, Thanks for your support on March 24th and your vote not to rezone the Lodge Abbot land, Kalea Bay, on Vanderbilt Drive, east. The decision ended a long fought battle on the language in the County Settlement Agreement of 2008. Our trust in government is reinforced by your vote. We know that this is just a battle in a war that can erupt again, but for now the land will remain green open space. Alan and Patricia Massey 14668 Glen Eden Drive 239-591-4862 1 GrecoSherry From: Patricia Massey <amassey@alum.mit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 6:49 PM Subject: PreserveThePUD@gmail.com Dear Commissioner, With just a few weeks to go, I hope that we can count on your support. Lodge Abbott should not be allowed to reopen the PUD as he has requested. Please be firm with him by your vote on March 24th and remind him that he made his decision in 2008. He gave his word; a man is only as good as his word. In 2008, the Commissioners gave him the west side of Vanderbilt Drive to build 5 high rise condos, Kalea Bay. The east side was to remain green, as the Settlement says, FOREVER. As a homeowner for 12 years in Glen Eden on the Lakes, off Vanderbilt Drive, I am very concerned about the green space remaining in the county. Preserve The PUD; preserve the land. Thank you in advance for your support. Alan and Patricia Massey 14668 Glen Eden Drive 239-591-4862 PreserveThePUD@gmail.com i GrecoSherry From: TaylorPenny Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 9:37 PM To: Diane Rupnow Cc: OchsLeo; GrecoSherry; KlatzkowJeff Subject: Re: Confirmation Dear Diane, That is not what I intended nor said. There will be NO public meeting. That was made very clear when the neighbors came to the Commission meeting and we stopped any further testimony. What there will be is a meeting where you and four others will have an opportunity to express your concerns to the County Manager. In the time frame of one week and two days until the meeting on the 28th, there will be no decision from staff coming forward. I am sorry that Sherry may have misunderstood and then communicated what was intended by my remarks. You requested a meeting with the County Manager. I suggested that you have the two former members from the Planning Commission and yourself attend that meeting. This is the only meeting that I intended in my communication with you. The process outlined in the law MUST be followed exactly. Please respect this. Cordially, Penny Penny Taylor Commissioner, District 4 Collier County 239/252-8603 From: Diane Rupnow Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 4:51 PM To: OchsLeo Cc: KlatzkowJeff;TaylorPenny; Ralf Brookes; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay; Carl Stendahl; David Cressy Subject: Confirmation Dear Mr. Ochs, This message will confirm our meeting with you on April 28th at 11:00. Even though I will be unable to attend in person, I hope to be able to join the meeting via phone. Carl Stendhal and David Cressy from Glen Eden and 1 GrecoSherry From: Jan Lindberg <jan.lindberg@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 3:55 PM To: FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; HenningTom; NanceTim;TaylorPenny; DeselemKay Subject: RE: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Dear Commissioners, Thank you for your replies. Yes, it is clear that the towers currently planned for Kalea Bay were approved by a settlement agreement in 2008. But my point is the following: when the developer will change the plan regarding the golf course,you have the possibility to negotiate. Why let him take out the golf course without some kind of compensation? In my mind,a good compensation would be to have them shave off a number of stories from the high rises to get them to more fit into the environment. Yours sincerely, Jan Lindberg From:Jan Lindberg [mailto:jan.lindberg@comcast.net] Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2015 1:33 PM To: 'DonnaFiala@colliergov.net'; 'GeorgiaHiller@colliergov.net'; 'TomHenning@colliergov.net'; 'TimNance@colliergov.net'; 'PennyTaylor@colliergov.net'; 'kaydeselem@colliergov.net' Subject: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Dear Commissioners, Please reconsider the present plan for Kalea Bay. All high rises North of Vanderbilt Beach Road (The Dunes, Pelican Isle,Aqua etc.) are about 10 stories high. Kalea is proposed to be twice that! Please go to the site and try to imagine six high rises twice the height of Aqua. It will be monstrous. Please do not destroy the whole look of this part of North Naples. Yours sincerely, Jan Lindberg 1 GrecoSherry From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 11:50 AM To: BrownAraqueSummer Subject: Re: Current Plans for Cocohatchee Bay "golf course parcel" Dear Summer, It has been quite some time since I sent you the above message and you replied . . . I have heard nothing from your director. . . As per terms in the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release signed by Collier County Commissioners and Lodge Abbott on June 9, 2008 and recorded in the official records of Collier County by Dwight Brock on June 10, 2008, the land on the NE corner of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt drive is limited in use to a golf course or a preserve in perpetuity. (See screen shot of paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement in attachment 1) Richard Corace (one of two developers making up Lodge Abbott) has made statements like, "golf courses are a liability" and Richard Grant(developer's attorney)has said, "golf courses are not as popular or as profitable as they one were." It is no secret that there are already plenty of golf courses in both Collier and Lee counties and some of them are struggling to make a profit. Because of this, some are asking to convert golf courses to residential zoning. All of the above would cast doubt on the likelihood that a savvy developer would build a newgolf course in today's market and economy. Therefore,those of us who live adjacent to this "golf course parcel" were surprised when big machines moved in there last fall and clear- cut two large areas on the property and then hauled in hundreds of truckloads of fill from Kalea Bay. In September of 2015 and again in November, I sent a message to Matt McLean's office expressing our concerns about Lodge Abbott cutting down trees on property that should remain a preserve in its natural vegetative state if a golf course is not to be built. We were assured that Lodge Abbot's extension of a 2004 permit to build a golf course made his activities legal and possible. I also contacted Daryl Hughes, director of permits and Steve Nagle with Southwest Florida Water Management about our concerns and both reported back that all activity was allowed by the golf course permit. Please go online to the Kalea Bay website and read the entire section on amenities that will be provided to condo owners in the 5 towers and you will find no mention about a golf course being built. Don't you think promotional materials would include information about a golf course IF they planned to build a golf course? (See screen shot of the text of the Kalea Bay amenities description in Attachment 2.) Recently I went to the Kalea Bay Sales office with a visitor from out-of-state who is truly interested in purchasing a condo on the gulf. During a 20 minute discussion,the Kalea Bay sales agent repeated three times that there are no plans to build a golf course with the Kalea Bay project. They have detailed pricing sheets to give to prospective buyers, but there is no mention of golf course memberships. 1 GrecoSherry From: Jacqueline <jacqic@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 4:21 PM To: HillerGeorgia Cc: FialaDonna; TaylorPenny; HenningTom; NanceTim; SmithCamden Subject: NO to Cocohatchee PUD ! PLEASE Thank you for your service to our community. Please vote NO for this ! I live in the Villages of Emerald Bay and vehemently oppose the proposed development on the east side of Vanderbilt Dr. The developer should not be allowed to have the terms of the agreement changed. I hike in that area and it is home to so much wildlife (including bald eagles) which are being squeezed out of our local area as it is with the Kalea Bay development they are building. Please protect that pristine area for our children to enjoy and our wildlife to live. Sincerely, Jacqueline Shifflett Villages of Emerald Bay (410) 713-5252 Permanent resident of Naples 1 GrecoSherry From: Bill & Mary Foote <2feet@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 8:21 PM To: FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; HenningTom;TaylorPenny; NanceTim Subject: Memo to Cnty Commissioners-Kalea Bay Attachments: Memo to Cnty Commissioners-Kalea Bay.docx Please see attached- Thank you, Bill Foote, Pres. Arbor Trace 1 GrecoSherry From: William Becraft <wbecraft@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:27 AM To: FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; BillMcDanial@colliergov.net Cc: William Becraft; Marc Johnson;jeff barkley-beachwalk;Jon Christensen; Tom Glennon; Jim McComb; Richardson, George ;Topper Woelfer Subject: One Naples & Kalea Bay Dear Commissioners, As a resident of the Beachwalk community, I must express my displeasure with the proposed development of One Naples and to the changes considered for Kalea Bay. A 20 story condo tower and three 6 story condos with 300 units are too much for the Vanderbilt Beach area. All the near by 20 story buildings are in the Pelican Bay development, please be strong enough to limit buildings north of Vanderbilt Beach Rd to a more reasonable height, similar to the Turtle club, etc. The increased traffic will be a nightmare and have you ever tried to find a spot on the beach, so let's not add another 600+ people. Kalea Bay should have never been allowed to build 5 hi rises in the first place, so please make them conform to the original plan and not allow them to make their buildings wider or taller. Isn't it interesting that the meetings for One Naples happen in the middle of May, after most seasonal residents have left for the summer. I am writing this because my wife and I fly north this afternoon and we will be unable to attend the meeting this evening. I am asking that you do not approve any condo over 6-7 stories and that the total number of units for the One Naples development be limited to 100-150. With Appreciation, Bill Becraft 564 Beachwalk Circle Naples, Fl 34108 1 GrecoSherry From: TaylorPenny Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 1:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow Subject: RE:Thank you for clarification Dear Diane, Thank you for your email Diane. Enjoy your time with your grandchildren and I am pleased that you will be able to participate in the meeting. All the best, Penny Penny Taylor Chairman, Board of County Commissioners District 4 Commissioner 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 PennyTaylor@colliergov.net 239-252-8604 Gv .er Gati.»>Y From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 9:17 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Thank you for clarification Dear Commissioner Taylor, Thanks you so much for your email clarifying the intention of your message. Several of us interpreted the words differently so that's why I asked for confirmation. Now our expectations are clear. We are grateful that you facilitated our being able to meet with Leo Ochs. It is unfortunate that both Judi Palay and I will not be in Naples on April 28th at 11:00. We will be on trips we scheduled a long time ago. I will be visiting our two grandchildren in the state of WA and I hope to be allowed to attend the meeting via phone. Ours is a committee of four and the other two members, Carl Stendhal and David Cressy will attend the meeting on the 28th as will Brad Schiffer and Donna Reed Caron, the former Planning Commissioners. Again, we are very grateful that you have helped us to get this meeting with the County Manager. 1 GrecoSherry From: Patricia Massey <amassey@alum.mit.edu> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 6:02 PM To: FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; HenningTom; NanceTim; TaylorPenny Subject: Settlement Agreement of June 9, 2008 To Collier County Commissioners: Our full time home address for the past 12 years is 14668 Glen Eden Drive, Naples, FL 34110. We abut the Planned Urban Development property being considered by the Planning Commissioners and Collier County Commissioners. We do not want to re-open the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Urban Development (PUD) Settlement of 2008 and we do stand by the Settlement Agreement of June 9, 2008 to have the area remain a green space/nature preserve or golf course forever. We do not want to see the destruction on the Florida native woods and wetlands or more habitat destruction next to our property. Cocohatchee Bay is also at risk of pollution from water runoff during the rainy season. To date there has been no specific information given regarding many of the details of the amendment as to why it would be in the public interest to amend the Settlement Agreement. Developer Lodge/Abbott LLC sued the Citizens of Collier County in 2008 and won the right to build 1, seventeen-story and 4, twenty-story, condo buildings on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. The developer wants to build homes on court-settlement land designated to be golf course, or left green forever. We have followed the progress of this issue and have faithfully attended meetings. There has not been a public neighborhood meeting since March 19, 2014. Even Richard Corace of Lodge Abbott Associates, the developer, stated that the meeting that night was"neither neighborly nor informative". There has been no specific information given as to the location of the proposed single family homes, ingress and egress access points. There has been no plan to address the increased traffic on Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive. They are both 2 lane roads. The developer has started building Kalea Bay high rise buildings on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. Is greed driving the desire to build residential areas on the east side too?We expect our elected officials to enforce settlement agreements and not violate public trust. Alan and Patricia Massey 239-591-4862 14668 Glen Eden Dr. Naples, FL 34110 1 GrecoSherry From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 9:17 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Thank you for clarification Dear Commissioner Taylor, Thanks you so much for your email clarifying the intention of your message. Several of us interpreted the words differently so that's why I asked for confirmation. Now our expectations are clear. We are grateful that you facilitated our being able to meet with Leo Ochs. It is unfortunate that both Judi Palay and I will not be in Naples on April 28th at 11:00. We will be on trips we scheduled a long time ago. I will be visiting our two grandchildren in the state of WA and I hope to be allowed to attend the meeting via phone. Ours is a committee of four and the other two members, Carl Stendhal and David Cressy will attend the meeting on the 28th as will Brad Schiffer and Donna Reed Caron,the former Planning Commissioners. Again, we are very grateful that you have helped us to get this meeting with the County Manager. Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 1 GrecoSherry From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 9:35 AM To: TaylorPenny Cc: OchsLeo Subject: TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Attachments: TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Commissioner: Please see attached. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239) 252-2614 From: Ralf Brookes [mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 4:51 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc:VelascoJessica <JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net>; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Subject:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Thank you Jeff Please find letter attached to County Manager and BCC Chair regarding a request for advance time certain (delivered per email below). Can you please deliver this letter to them via email because per the recent proposed Fla Bar rules, I would like to communicate through you on this matter and I do not have the email for the BCC Chair. PS - I am available July 11 after 1 pm and also available anytime July 12 the following day as you note may happen given the number of expected items on this agenda. Thanks again, Ralf 1 Jeff Can you please provide me with assurance in writing in advance regarding not starting this item until I am able to be present on July 11th- I can be there anytime after 1 pm on July 11. I would prefer that the notice of hearing change 9:00 am to "1:00 pm or as soon thereafter as can be heard." [I also hope this would avoid confusion for the many citizens we expect to attend the hearing and allow them to comfortably arrive in the afternoon rather than be there all day in reliance on the official notice that they will read in the newpaper.] Also " "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" should be removed and replaced with "Notice of Intent to Consider an Administrative Appeal" Many thanks in advance, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone (239) 910-5464 Fax (866) 341-6086 RalfBrookes@gmail.com Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttomey.com 3 Wanda Rodriguez, ACT Advanced Certified Paralegal- Office of the County Attorney (239)252-8400 From: Martha S. Vergara [mailto:Martha.Vergara@collierclerk.com] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 2:25 PM To: RodriguezWanda<WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net>; AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>; 'Velasco,' <Jessica@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay<RayBellows@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net> Subject: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Hello All, Attached is the revised ad proof per the petitioners changes. E3 Let me know if there are any other changes. Thanks, Martha { Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 5 GrecoSherry From: Susan Snyder <ssnyder2@columbus.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 10:00 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Today's Commissioners' Meeting Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Commissioner Taylor, I am deeply disturbed that at the Collier County Commissioners meeting today (April 11, 2017), the United States Constitutional right, as described in the First Amendment (ie. Freedom of Speech), was denied by county leaders to sixteen persons. The agenda item for which we intended to participate was specifically titled, "Public Comments on General Topics Not On The Current Or Future Agenda." Our topic was not on today's agenda, and to our knowledge it is not scheduled to be included on a future agenda. In fact, the purpose of our wanting to speak today was to request that our concern be added to a future agenda. Below is the exact verbiage I intended to use today, had I been allowed to speak. "Good morning Commissioners. For the record, my name is Susan Snyder and I am a registered voter in Collier County. My address is 17 Bluebill Ave, which is located at the north end of Vanderbilt Beach. I've been an active member of the community for 17 years and have closely followed development in the county. My concern today is that I've learned County Commissioners have not been informed by County staff of deviations from the Site Development Plans passed with the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement. It is the function of county staff to provide Commissioners with all the information needed to make informed administrative decisions that affect the quality of life of the citizens of Collier County. By not informing Commissioners and instead making what I consider unjustified decisions that disregard both the Cocohatchee PUD and the Site Development Plan for the Kalea Bay Towers community, staff's behavior is unethical, unprofessional, and irresponsible. The community at large will be affected by these staff decisions. I would ask Commissioners to set a date for a public hearing to discuss specifics of the Cocohatchee PUD agreement and the Site Development Plan for the Kalea Bay Towers community. Those legal documents give specific dimensions and other specifications regarding the Kalea Bay project. Twice in 2015, Lodge Abbot Associates went to Collier County Commissioners to try to reopen the settlement. The Commissioners said "No." Now it appears that this development company has gone directly to county staff and circumnavigated the Commissioners. Thank you for considering a public hearing for the community to have input." 1 GrecoSherry From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 10:38 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Update--Mark Strain Commissioner Taylor, thanks for suggesting that our group set up a meeting with Mark Strain. I sent him an email requesting such a meeting, but have had no response from him. Hopefully, he will be able to work us into his busy schedule. I would love to get feedback from you after you have read the pages 46--66 of the January 11, 2008 Planning Commissioners' meeting. How can the opinion of one staff--Ross Gochener--be the reason that footnote 3 could be interpreted to mean the administrative reduction could be unlimited? Why was it okay to NOT inform the Board of County Commissioners about the disagreement of the interpretation of Footnote 3. I am willing to bet that if Frank Halas and Donna Fiala had been told that they planned on changing the SDP's after they were approved in the Settlement Agreement (i.e. width of buildings changed from 260' to 310' AND the buildings could be placed 100' or less apart,they never would have approved that in 2008.Now we have a mess. . . Also, please read the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement Analysis. Thanks! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 1 Cocohatchee Bay Facts/Time Line The Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved in 2000 and included 532.09 acres of land, 590 dwelling units, 4 towers 20 stories tall, 1 tower 15 stories tall, a golf course with 3 holes west of Vanderbilt and 15 holes east of Vanderbilt. Of the 590 dwelling units, 110 units were approved east of Vanderbilt and 480 units were approved in the towers. The 2000 PUD also included a Bald Eagle Management Plan in which Abbott agreed to a "no construction zone" within 750' of the bald eagles' nest (1500' during nesting season.) When the bald eagle was removed from the endangered species list, Abbott applied for and received approval from state and federal agencies and submitted a site development plan. Planning Commission advised that a PUD amendment to amend the Bald Eagle Management Plan would first be required. • May 10, 2005 BCC heard Abbott's amendment and disapproved by a vote of 4-1. Abbott began litigation in June of 2005. May 1, 2006 Abbott served a Bert Harris Notice of Claim on the County for over $247 million. After months of required mediation, at its December 12, 2006 meeting, Commissioners authorized making a written settlement offer to Lodge Abbott. April 22, 2008 BCC approved Settlement Agreement. The document was dated June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts on June 10tH The Settlement allowed 108 dwelling units to be moved from the eastern parcel to the towers and assured that "if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reasons, then all of the GC Parcel including without limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those portions allowed for 2 residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the amended PUD Preserve Parcel." To read entire settlement go to: http://media.wix.com/ugd/d6f3a 1_6aecd24ad6d948849c6b3cfec23e6cf4.pdf Although Hiller ignored her constituents and totally did all she could to get the developer what he wanted, she was not successful. She has been trying to find a way to eliminate the need for a supermajority vote—she insists this is not a land-use issue. . . , a u € Y . ' 'r 3 P' �x �� / `4 andA Ma" * wJ ,' Y I*,, �T + 9,,• ,,-i::- *.474.4'..• ' . l' c j "� ,.11,1,...'' tp, �w .49#04,0:#74,, �5{ y� 42 1,4 '2,,,w0S,A4 ri. ' , r ..,3.-- ,t, �ex * % .-, 1 . . , v, ,„1 , „ti. - , p i„ {Mz & i - R i 4,44-. .- A . - ; ----tv"-- ---., .,, " . ,. % : 7,_ par tom; _.+.---- ..• a ,. a ect i� 'v6c '4' --4. - k '..:.; .t,I e,.,41"'4i,rkt,11,411c. 0,,,t,*>,'..g.f, ii, - ,,,,,,,,,,;171,f , � r �i k t- '{ TM x' 4 s t, 'aai' ", y. R.i,kev<s. ,i1� 4444 ' % lull r,' It '+�� ,� ,r. a L.,%*, ,� . - • � .t,., s: x 3ar,51 •. E a ae wi > ,i � `• : .} gra , 4 i �' "fie 44'.-„ 4,`t4 .. A, , , ,, ,,,,„ , , . :.„ , .. „ ,,,, .. . ., t It �a E*. ' fa ..�y a ; ids . m}.' L- tQ ' ' b 03 40 X 1) M CJ 4� a 6 'v In a ` ,4 3 13-611 412 u o Cl -p „� ,� E © WI u v t o C . }+o C L til + o tCl IU 4.r o c a t o no c i ti Z.6 c o c O L ro 'E $4- aJ w " a V o .+ C ›N '''.- (13 U C la- 4i$ 3 4) VI M .= >it V -- ( ' Nor .0 ; a o 3 <[ a ti 'E C c Q 10.• 0. .0 o o a i ► > I CI. .0 >1 C +-+ • 13 to .0 . ii „C VI ..0 .0 .0 C .� 0 C III ?► Iall N T+ ` ` +�' ILII '� C VI M 4a O "w r° 113 Lti 15 M ICI ifl - u CO °§ •• in i ,i la. u. tti aJ a o C' 'Iv G G IV 2, 0. ,CU I„ c C. c , .o -v •,/2 a © a s-1 •- as c c ai c _ v- s r" / L+tiJ . . IIt a-+ .. a F••- g 4- 441 t .. ir0 73 eJ 113 IAtph. LS. +r 4 .•< ►� = 0 .4e. LI 0 I... 44 R . ii....1 CL 46'11 4.1 IV 4.4 0 LL w 4- m L c t°g RI c F- . .et c a ea o w a o .c a CU E i In bp �C p.. .51 s a 4J Ei c •— a, 2 (u u c In L to C c , L 0. In to C 4 O .� ;1 .0 a la o .0 2 L a }+ o ft. Z ;'C'CI 49 I«J C t� +Q F it: tc i Ct1 .' I›N 0an t CL 5 u a CU 4-1 u C +� a FVI RS es- o % C _ I,,. C E c° c C `u Cl" 'CU •t0 o Z7 tni V) 1 ._ In " - co ou a •W Z LL 6 y"" al 0. ai 4. ii o 70 .0 .0 a ra o Ila .3L C It Z .la a a ir24,0 cl. oj 03 n3 g t4 C 03 b-0 k" = E .0 to C .7:-: — L V 16- .r fa 44 a 4+ o a, +i- 3 a .- ;.. .c 0 by a o cy ▪'� E .14 o. , •m a s na .0 c 0 = a C y,. VI 0 •t1J In,y o 1- o .. . ; (6o o .— ;t o c a 611 til 0 m ...1 14. n U • t a t tiO vn . I. til >, .0 Rf o a GrecoSherry From: JudiPalay@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 11:05 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Wed pm-- Regarding Kalea Bay I wanted you to know the truth re our attempt to speak at the Open Session. THank you for your support. Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 From: JudiPalay@aol.com To: JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net Sent: 4/12/2017 6:25:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: Wed pm-- Regarding Kalea Bay Dear Attorney Klatzkow, Yesterday, you blocked more than a dozen Collier County residents from speaking to our commissioners. They wished to alert them to changes that were made to Kalea Bay Building one-- and since no one from the community was noticed re the changes, those changes are forever. And, now, since no one objected to those, you know that the same will be expected for buildings 2-5. It seems that we citizens are not playing on the same field as this developer. While you may not wish to tangle with him, he is taking advantage of us. We have to live the consequences of his actions. As I said yesterday, this Agreement is not a great one, but we are abiding by its stipulations and so must he. It states that he will not sue the county commissioners but you are allowing him to make us the targets and at an unnecessary expense to us when our role is not that of the enforcer of said Agreement. We are the public who are supposed to be protected. Our elected officials are supposed to know, follow and ensure that the rules are followed. When the commissioners are deliberately circumvented and are unaware of the deviations, we have a right to tell them. Building one was not on the agenda and will never be. PLease let me know how you intend to rectify yesterday's hurt to our Cocohatchee Bay residents. I feel strongly that we have been "injured" by a decision that should not have been made. Thank you- Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 GrecoSherry From: Renee Gaddis <renee@reneegaddis.com> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 1:15 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; BurtSaunders@colliergov.n; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay PUD Attachments: renee letter July 6 2017.pdf Renee Gaddis Principal Designer RENEE CADDIS INTERIORS t. 239.431.8352 I m. 239.848.5794 a. 9915 Tamiami Trail N, Suite 1 ( Naples, FL 34108 renee@reneegaddis.com www.reneegaddis.com 1 GrecoSherry From: TaylorPenny Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 3:26 PM To: Diane Rupnow Subject: RE: Letter from our Attorney Dear Diane, I spoke with Mark Strain and would suggest that you and Judi meet with him. He has worked on the developer's side and has expressed caution at filing anything right now. I have a meeting tomorrow and have been preparing for it since I saw you so I haven't read the minutes. However I will reach out to you after we get through tomorrow....and I have had a chance to review the material that you gave me. Penny Penny Taylor Chairman, Board of County Commissioners District 4 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 PennyTaylor@colliergov.net 239-252-8604 Co er County From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:11 PM To: TaylorPenny Cc: Ralf Brookes; Judi Palay Subject: Letter from our Attorney Dear Commissioner Taylor, Thank you for meeting with Judi Palay and me last Wednesday. Since then, we have met with Commissioners Fiala, Solice and Saunders. None of them had been given the letter our attorney, Ralf Brookes sent to the County via the County Attorney. Fortunately, we also set up meetings with County Commissioners to provide relevant information.. . I would guess that Mr. Klatzkow gave our attorney's letter to the County Manager and his assistant who may have shared it with Chris Scott and Mike Bosie. Neither Mr. Klatzkow nor Mr. Ochs nor anyone in County Planning has responded to our Attorney or us regarding our concerns. i GrecoSherry From: GrecoSherry Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 10:04 AM To: 'Diane Rupnow' Cc: TaylorPenny Subject: RE: Our meeting today at 1:00 Good morning Ms. Rupnow, We look forward to meeting with you also and thank you for letting us know in advance the number of attendees and their names. We have arranged to have you get through security and communications quickly. Also, we are working with our IT personnel in order for you to be able to show your photos to everyone at the meeting. If you have any other questions please call our office. S/ierry 4reco Sherry Greco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 SherryGreco(a@colliergov.net Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter 9 er County From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 9:32 AM To:TaylorPenny; GrecoSherry Subject: Our meeting today at 1:00 Good Morning Commissioner Taylor and Ms. Greco, I am looking forward to our meeting today at 1:00 and appreciate the opportunity to be heard. There will be 13 of us coming to the meeting today: Pat Bonser, Carl and Marilyn Stendhal, Barb and Mike Taylor, Peggy Ross and myself from Glen Eden on the Lakes; Jim and Kitty Shaw from Tarpon Cove; and Lou De Prisco and Dick Wilson from Arbor Trace. Brad 1 BiIIMcDaniel@colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net McDaniel, Taylor, Saunder, Fiala, Solis Dear Collier County Commissioners: As a long-time Naples business owner, I am concerned that the opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay, should it be successful, may adversely affect the Southwest Florida economy and the Collier County tax base. Projects such as this generate significant tax revenue for our county and at the same time require little in government services. That's a win-win for government. It will also provide hundreds of jobs to an industry that is coming off years of stagnation. Commissioners, I urge you to support the Kalea Bay development project and allow our free market to work as it is intended and over the objections of the not- in-my-backyard opposition. Sincerely, Renee Gaddis Renee Gaddis Interiors 9915 Tamiami Trail N #1 Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 431-8352 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Penny Taylor COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Advertised Public Hearings 9.A. ***This item has been continued from the June 27, 2017 BCC meeting.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended,the Wolf Creek RPUD,to approve an insubstantial change to the PUD,to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only, and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34,Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 189± acres. [PDI-PL20160000404] (Mike Bosi, Director, Zoning Division) NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE (Meetings Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls Calls: Calls from Bruce Anderson's office (Cheffy Passidomo) on Friday July 7th & Conference call on Monday, July 10th Emails: Marc Allen (a constituent who has an issue with the plan), Steve Bracci an attorney for the Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members, Richard Yovanovich & Brue Anderson CA) tot Cre ed< ig GrecoSherry J $ filo From: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff Cc: SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; rbanderson@napleslaw.com Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: 2017.07.05 Letter to Jeff Klatzkow (Wolf Creek PUD - Vanderbilt Reserve).pdf; Exhibit No. 2.0 Application No. 161123-9 Page 3 of 7.pdf;Vanderbilt Reserve Summary June 2017.pdf; Summary Documents July 2017 2nd.pdf Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci • In Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 1 STEVEN J.BRACCI, PA A Professional Association Attorney at Law 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102 Naples,Florida 34109 Ph: (239)596-2635 Fax: (239)431-6045 steve@braccilaw.com www.braccilaw.com { July 5,2017 VIA E-MAIL jeffldatzkow@colliergov.net Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Collier County Attorney's Office 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples,Florida 34112 Re: Vanderbilt Reserve Wolf Creek PUD Insubstantial Change Request Vanderbilt Reserve-SDP Application for 215 unit subdivision per Permit Tracking#PL20160000157 Dear Jeff: On behalf of the Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members,the purpose of this letter is to suggest that Vanderbilt Reserve is improperly seeking a piecemeal"insubstantial change" to the Wolf Creek PUD as part of its overall effort to obtain an SDP for a 215 unit residential subdivision. The SDP application documents are referenced at Permit Tracking #PL20160000157. In order for Vanderbilt Reserve to obtain that SDP,it requires not only a reduction of its preserve area,but also an increase in its residential density. The increase in density requires a"substantial" change to the Wolf Creek PUD pursuant to LDC Sect. 10.02.13.E.1.b,rather than the currently requested insubstantial change. For whatever reason, both staff and the owner/developer are ignoring the fact that the presently requested 215 units far exceeds the density allocated to the Vamderbilt Reserve property pursuant to the PUD. Not only do Vanderbilt Reserve's proposed 215 units exceed its overall allocated density,but the 115 dwelling units(plus 4 partial units)shown on what is known as the "Mederos"property far exceeds the 80 units that were allocated to the Mederos Parcel pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 2007-46. At last week's hearing on Vanderbilt Reserve's insubstantial change application to amend the Wolf Creek PUD to reduce the preserve area,you correctly advised the Board,that the Wolf Creek PUD was "balkanized"back in 2007. In other words, rather than looking at the PUD's density as a whole, certain parcels were treated by the BCC as sub-parcels and allocated specific unit densities. This includes what is known as the"Mederos"property which, under Ordinance 2007-46, was assigned 80 development units. This same "Mederos"parcel is where the bulk of preserve is situated which the Developer/owner is seeking a reduction. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Page 3 Please feel free to contact me if you wish to further discuss this matter. Sincerely, STEVEN J. BRACCI, PA { Steven J.Bracci, Esq. cc: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Bruce Anderson, Esq. Client { { I CD CD r"- NVId 30VNIVLICI I — __. _ s I 4 ..t.c4,-I 4 1. I I 1 MKT 1.4"NOIVII V008 V ONICIV11.3 NIANid CV CS 4,5 OPP muns I. 116 11 .11(31134333Alin93x3A 1m387: 11.11 oil 1.118b3ONV 1 1 3AtI3S-31:1----- 4 i v .4 — Ili 0 I __ -__-_-_:a .i 1 I i 6 III 1 1- i 1118113ONVA........ HI num,„ _ _, ,,''',1f,,,, 1 , 1 I CN 0 ,-- C'') Z ',-,,, •2) .--, _a "-- as e 1 1 , wiv— — in INIV ill Li' It -- I Jot poi I I, i .. , , y i 11 i I I; Lig 1 w 0 44-14,' 41j51, iii4 j <111 ji ,j,ji '_:14. ';-; .- . - i 1 i 1 ii cf 14 .,/-,- • • • %, IbiOiO1ftfluhIiiiiiihIuuiitifthiIhd.ffl* IIUuhi üthfflth1W, 1 !i 1 It 11 izal 1 li -CI I ill ri IiUiiuifluiilUtiiiuiiitilitiifliüiiiiliflhiHil iiiiiiiiiii iiiiii ii" it Iif; 11 54 = i"--I 4-- 'Ai-- .‘-i' ' " 1,11 1 miinip LI 31 ii il < lig! i i Ilii-lit L 11,011114 , -1fill,Plii 1,-:- IOW v.isi ',1-',Ie -, , ,-..--1,•----r pLuitillini ri;1 .1 I 11 i 1 I;I! il I Ilii / Pi *isomplommumumouipurii INN" i i 1;I i i 1:l 0 iii 11,11 i ,3g t 1 1 ri 1.4..T.-..rs*4014+,#..r.p.?tnit*P91#"*.t*I.Plirski. ..*-**"*14,144"i!'"*"*•40"14! I i i' l;f ill 11.1i II i! i N. s, I 1 l'i i I t;1111;11 ii 1 1 i ft 11 t th 11 1.2 1 11 0, , I I 5 li I i D Pla PI titt a P - . ' a _ v ' o 40 i U) 41 :4'4 13 4,01 1 1:‘ 7, . c ., , . .„ 0,4 ___ _ , if ,,,,r _ r__ , R_A;2; 0 ccs _- - — . ...,, I-II" , 11/ ....a. ..-" ow 0) ey) ..-..... — 1 1 -4 41 t —. -',..:,--z-'wi., ,,,, ,,,,-.. 'Crr- ....--`.,f_. h' -- ----- E.--.. C -..,..7.-.1..-a.r....—. 4,,...„.. ,..--,... ..-...-.. .__„ ... . r mr _ a) z ea,- it v trutl R .., 1 vrtit. alai (-, ,I IL_ , ilatittir 3 i .:1 .,4 i . . ., VI 0, r , .. , . I/4 ,i 1 .... ,,*. 1 • *, . ?, innsArmAffitr Alle;351.144-„ -_46._ - _ L.. -... 1,, kilts silo 1 -.., 1 I . , ill i tli jai Lazi eji Ili .=z a lir.,pi 2 r....,...,.....,x ;;;Iya,„_,........,........... .„.....iiimmnimi-L2-11 -==xaszrar.--.... -:.....-74.,tr, ,......, :2:„...i CI ...I' ,,,allillie1' nr...e=3.,---tt--t33-.22._;:::-..... .- ,,-,7,7_,,,:s--...io 7 fr . ..4. , -.7 „.., '0 7. :3,,rh----12*.„ zialuirla 'Itattail Wail' i't" 'T -----0'; E : - r..ii E a) r 1 1 ,I 4 ' i 1 Ilrike* Olt .MIE rittillEk. ' 01120P40,11' 1* 3, il I: En= , ,I . 1 c.) t_,... 4, --ipt4ii , , r-k 4.-,,,0' 4 • NA a' I in0- :14 ,..1.4.,-...„... ,- c 3 , F--I :0 1 ''i L..; •• .1 y- z 0 0 0 0 ... - - iiii nil*. 1 11 .... I 1 •I'M i C kCs w i 1_ • IllIl 011 i il# iv- T.:0! ,t . ., c. = 0, .1* f 11 I 0 = If jilt pli 1- a 1 a I E v , : .! illuitilis-E.I _ ,111 I 1 i . - • I t 114 4.- 1 CD 113 0 'To > C5 31] li iE an .L, h 0 t i ......-,r , it - mit " co 't a) 0 - II_ .70' Olitre'- . --i- ----, , ,, 12._F„,,i ' --,-; RH•, , - ' 11 ' ' 1 it i lel • i milk ', ' I,: irl-namo .- 1'' '10 6 1_ ili 'le it) Ii,.210!C,1--, ---,Ca A e„ ,1 , I d 1/1 -11 !" 1, i '*i 41 .'i iiititiststit gligiltilighdl--29' Wirt ., w , 1 illit.fil -II: 1 t ?: 'Ill,1 , ....=1 ,,,,' tra i • s . .----,-----zsara-z.-za4a.............. .1 !: ii ii, 4 ... '',-,........ ---"--••••CairiiiriVitarrigardims"Tro''. 'm'lim ......,.....z. . vorammoAlik, i LI i'. I; V tilt .......,,,.., . -... .-...•...-141:7;;; .—..4., 41,:"..M1MijeTrill 1 1 1 i 1. , vii .....—_.,...,......,....,11,..„,„7-e-,;grits omming r illy 1444 i . i ii 4 i ' ""-' ir,--11;:itia,fil a1041" . "0"-111114,61T-', -,I, .: , ,..„,,..,1 IL-- i , , 0 ,. , R2! 1 , r .1 ,.I.'A' ' - • , .11,I*,. : • 1 CP CI - litl i ' 1 901109114 COI 1111wIw''.11-1 '''' laps -..m.-1,At...,- villit 4* V ill '' g cu j ?'--1 • Re : ' - - - - - '-i__LLI___1_-- ,_---illi ,.. Ail ..:1:.•s. - el -, - vg i FE ID' to' c.) t.... (-) gall 4 1 43 = jUir- -411P el .4 'j :_. 1 ..; , ....... -; 1 .• I i 1 vu ..... ill : iktrilid t; el j,1 RI 0 , 4 f .. "•11111i11,13-t 1' i (t) 133 , 3 Ectwir L , 0 cl 4 1 leic.Itl;eleo it I; -, I V 12 CD co i II ; li iiitilitizists Astetfil'iliffeds ../ Ailit L, • PI II. a I/ 4_,....!---II- 1.1,-,--Tr.---- (4., r . . ""-;,„ ,t1ICI4 !! 1 IL; al) ra7m7"111441-11figrallitril'ipts7 li; ek in ; 1 il fir NM, wit l'A 4A-110 Israii. -11 I • ,, mni ...i.: 1 8 ci ele e a 4, an , p • : It od .-,i'l'ili isitie ; AA,. Ill' I I . lia _ •=-,=- -_ _ - - -- - .t.,•;,.... . _ _ -— -- , .;i-... .. 1:, ... I*1 .''',..—..--..--T- I, ii - .41..-.1.01.,ti.O...... i.. . --- - ....-- - -------- .. .'.. ".. .a ... ... .. 1 ------- --- -. ......--. —. f4i0ede \ i Commissioner, Pertinent pages from County records have been attached in hopes of allowing a better understanding of the Wolf Creek PUD specifically with regards to density allocation, the proposed Vanderbilt Reserve site plan and offsite improvements. A) History of density allocation in Wolf Creek RPUD: Sept 23, 2003 - Ordinance 2003-45 - Wolf Creek PUD established - 147.69 acres with 591 dwelling units approved and maximum permitted density of 4 dwelling units per acre - no allocation to any specific parcel or development but separate parcels delineated August 23, 2004 - Cost Sharing Agreement entered into OR 3635: Dwelling units assigned to parcels - note parcel numbers for CSA are different than those in County WCPUD document Upon execution of the agreement there was an immediate transfer of dwelling units from parcels 4, 5 & 6 to parcel 1 Following that transfer, the owner of parcel 1&2 had a limited time option to purchase additional density from the owner of parcels 7, 8 & 9, and this option expired in 2005 Density only transferable with written permission of owner of property losing density Runs with the land - owner is property owner May 22, 2007 - Ordinance 2007-46 - Mederos 20 acre parcel added to WCPUD BCC minutes May 22-23, 2007 pages 70-71 80 dwelling units requested for now Vanderbilt Reserve Parcel 9 no density bonuses requested, density of 3.99 80 dwelling units specifically allocated to the —20 acres which is now the Vanderbilt Reserve Parcel 9 - pg 17 Ord 2007-46 states "80 dwelling units approved in the the 20 acres being added" May 14, 2013 - Ordinance 2013-37 - Scenic Woods and a portion of Palermo Cove brought into WCPUD 83 dwelling units specifically assigned to parcels 1A-3A density was assigned, thus only usable by those parcels page 11 Ord 2013-37 Minutes from CCPC dated March 21, 2013 pigs 53-54: County and developer lawyers worked together to construct verbiage that would specifically allocate the 83 dwelling units that were being added to parcels 1A- 3A only and limited the density in 1A-3A such that they could The northern parcel is allocated 24 dwelling units by the CSA based upon acreage it consists of—12 acres, which is —60% of the total acreage of parcel #3 WCPUD (parcel #4 of CSA) - which was allocated 40 dwelling units by the CSA, therefore based upon acreage, 3B would be allocated 24 dwelling units by the CSA Conclusions:The proposed site development plan for Vanderbilt Reserve has platted density not available or approved C) Offsite Improvements for Wolf Creek PUD - PristineNanderbilt Beach intersection Observations: Ordinance 2003-45 - WCPUD Master Plan Exhibit A shows a right turn in lane from Vanderbilt onto Pristine - note also right turn in lanes at Buckstone and into Mission Hills - these have been constructed The right turn in lane from Vanderbilt onto Pristine is present on all of the Master Plan exhibit A's through OR 2013-37 2004 CSA- OR 3635 Pgs 1696-1697 Phase I Budget for Black Bear Ridge shows line items for offsite improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection with monies to be allocated for WB Rt, EB Lt turn lanes as well as signalization There is a note under assumptions: "Vanderbilt Beach Rd temporary turn lanes not required (i.e. payments to county to build improvements to support project and to built as part of 6 lane improvements)." 2005 Construction Escrow Agreement with County for Subdivision Improvements Improvements set forth in the "Estimate" by Grady Minor are required improvements by Collier County ordinances Offsite improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection included WB Rt and EB Lt turn lanes as well as signalization - these were "required" The cost of these improvements were funded by the construction loan agreement -with a $3,057,906.50 construction loan held in a specific account The county had the right to utilize the funds for construction of the required improvements if the developer failed to complete them The requirements were binding upon the Developer's successors Google Maps - if you use google maps to look at Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd through Rt 41, the Pristine Drive/Vanderbilt Beach Rd intersection appears to be the only intersection that does not have a right turn in lane 011: 3635 PG: 1677 construction of Segment 2 shall be deemed to be the payment of said owner(s)fair share of the cost of the North-South Road with respect to Parcel 3. 7. Wolf Creek PUD. (a) Allocation. The Wolf Creek PUD encompasses Parcel 1, Parcel 2,Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive, and Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. The Wolf Creek PUD permits 591 residential dwelling units. Unless otherwise provided herein, density shall not be transferred from one parcel to another within the Wolf Creek PUD without prior written permission of the owner of the property losing density. The Wolf Creek PUD allocated the 591 residential units as follows and as shown on Exhibit"F"attached hereto and made a part hereof: Parcel 1-64 units;Parcel 7-41 units; and all other parcels in the PUD- 81 units each. Upon the execution of this Agreement, 41 dwelling units each shall be automatically transferred from each of Parcels 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6, at no cost, to Parcel 1, with a total resulting transfer of 123 units to Parcel 1. Accordingly,the number of residential units allocated to Parcel 1 under the Wolf Creek PUD shall be 187. (b) Option to Purchase Additional Density. The owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ("Purchaser")shall have the option to purchase(in addition to the density allocated to Parcel 1 and Parcel pursuant to subsection (a) hereof) from the owner of Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive, ("Seller") up to 92 dwelling units which have been allocated"'+ a '9• ; ►bsption (a) hereof to Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. Said option maybe exer^� A... . re than two transactions on or before P �" ' December 31, 2005 ("Expiration ti e purchase pn ch individual dwelling unit shall be $500.00. In the event Purchaser ec .oto exercise this option, ' .chaser shall,on or before the Expiration Date, notify Seller of the numyer . u °_'b--purehag-'. Clo 'ng i,)f any such purchase of dwelling units shall occur within 20 da of eller's re -bf n_otic-from P irch$ser. The purchase price shall be paid in cash, wired funds,or cas ' s c� c�`7a,"a` • < "VI' an pffice in Collier County, Florida or such other method as may be a 1 e tabl• t4 t1 e '-1= in 's .ole discretion. Seller shall have the sole discretion to determine d1 • . .\ei' ling e'a signed. Purchaser shall pay all costs associated with the tracer of dwelling units. V's oytio l terminate on midnight of the Expiration Date and be of no \ orce and effect. / ''"^''' e'r `� r. (c) Contingency. In t any statute, law . hrtdnce,resolution,rule, or regulation is adopted and enforced by the state, e '- = •a 4 entity (or any agency or department thereof) that would have the effect oftnit�nng-i e number of dwelling units that can be constructed within the Wolf Creek PUD(in it en1"ire ,the parties agree that Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be collectively allocated 33%of any such temporary allocation and Parcels 4 through 9 shall be allocated 67% of any such temporary allocation;provided,however,that such temporary allocation shall not have the effect of reallocating density among the parcels. For the purposes of this paragraph only, the term "temporary"shall mean for a period of no more than twelve(12)months. 8. Native Vegetation. Unless otherwise agreed by the owners of the various Parcels, all Parcels within the Wolf Creek PUD shall be designed to stand alone. All Parcels with indigenous native vegetation, as determined by Collier County, will be required to preserve or replant 25% of such native vegetation, as described in Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, or in the event of a repeal of said section, such other section of the Collier County Land Development Code controlling the same subject matter. Each of the Parcels shall provide for its own native vegetation requirements as shown within the Collier County approved environmental impact study that was submitted in conjunction with the Wolf Creek PUD rezoning petition,unless otherwise agreed to by any one or more Parcels owners. Parcels providing in excess of 25% native vegetation can transfer such credit to another Parcel under different ownership only upon written agreement of the property owner transferring the excess credit. 6 *** OR: 3635 PG: 1699 *** INITIAL DENSITY ALLOCATION-WOLF CREEK PUD Wolf Creek PUDs Initial Residential Unit Allocation 81 81 tiff` .. -�a: �AVMs� 81 ""Ill 110111 4 ON xi, . -- L� D v r�„cacdd lewd wrk - -� PUD a..e.Mw \-. f ,:.,, 4 ft ce B1 64 A2 Nrdr00'Batch Rad A-1 Tota/of 147.69 acres and 591 Units EXHIBIT"F' 28 May 22-23, 2007 to read, but what I wanted to point out here is that the -- let's see. We've got Vanderbilt road -- Beach Road here and 951 there. Thank you. And I heavily marked -- right there in the middle is parcel number five marked in red so that you can see what the situation is. The heavy black line that goes all the way around the existing PUD goes clear around -- clear around to the other side and back, carved out this -- either carved out or left out this parcel which is right smack dab in the middle. And to everybody's credit, they are trying to put this together with the existing PUD rather than create some other type of PUD or new PUD and -- so that we can have a real unified project and project area. A couple things to keep in mind. And this is all in the staff report. I know that you all have read the staff report and all the documents, but the -- in this subdistrict there's a base density of four dwelling units per acre. There's a limit of a maximum of 16 units per acre under the density rating system. And we're not asking for any density bonuses and there are no density reductions that are applicable. So the site would be eligible for four dwelling units per acre, and the requested density is actually 3.99. I'm not sure how it worked out that way. But we're asking for the four units per acre essentially. The transportation element. It's been found consistent with the transportation element. There are contingencies concerning concurrency and -- that are in the PUD document that has -- that was discussed and handled at the Planning Commission hearing and -- so that is in the PUD document that you have in front of you. One thing that is a little bit different, and that's the affordable housing impacts. The request had contained no provisions to address affordable or workforce housing demands that may be created. We went through the Planning Commission hearing process. It was Page 71 general configuration of which is also illustrated by Exhibit"A" and Exhibit "A- 1". B. Areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1" shall be constructed as lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof may be constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be in the same general configuration and contain the same general acreage as shown by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1". Minor modification to all tracts, lakes or other boundaries may be permitted at the time of subdivision plat or SDP approval, subject to the provisions of the LDC. C. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1", such easements as necessary (utility, private, semi-public) shall be established within or along the various Tracts as may be necessary. 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USES A maximum of 671754 residential dwelling units shall be constructed in the residential areas of the project. The gross project area is 44-7496188.78± acres. The gross project density shall be a maximum of 3.99 units per acre if all 674-754 dwelling units are approved and constructed-. A minimum of 83 dwelling units will be assigned to parcels 1A - 3A due to the additional acreage being added to the PUD by the owner of those parcels. In addition, parcels 1A- 3A shall be entitled to incorporate any other density owned by the developer of these parcels. There shall be a maximum density of 163 dwelling units on parcels 1A- 3A. 2.5 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a record plat, and/or condominium plat for all or part of the RPUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the RPUD Master Plan, Collier County subdivision rules, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan and Exhibit "A-1" RPUD Master Plan Amended, constitutes the required RPUD development plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with RPUD approval, a subdivision plat or SDP, as applicable, may be submitted for areas covered by the RPUD Master Plan. Any division of the property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the RPUD Master Plan Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1" -and LDC. C. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications to Collier County and the methodology for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. Words streak-through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 11 of 26 March 21,2013 we're modifying and bringing in properties to our PUD. We think we control those units that we're bringing in. And then,of course,you've heard reference to another allocation agreement that was in place before this PUD amendment was revised. So the language here,in essence,says that we've got 83 units associated with what we're bringing in, and then there's,you know--I can't read it from here. I'll have to come over and read it if we want to read it into the record. But,in essence,the language is going to say,a minimum of 83 dwelling units will be assigned to the Parcels I A through 3A due to the additional acreage being added to the PUD by the owner of those parcels. And,in addition,Parcels 1 A through 3A shall be entitled to incorporate any other density owned by the developer of these parcels. There shall be a ma.,dmum density of 163 units on Parcels IA through 3A. And that's really for,I guess,protection of the other owners as well to make sure that we're not making a grab for more units than we think we're entitled to,nor are we going to put a bunch of density that was unanticipated on the parcels that were originally part of the agreement. So hopefully that works for everybody. I know that--I mean,obviously everything's subject to further wordsmithing,but I think that captures what we were trying to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was concerned earlier today that--I wanted to make sure that the additional density was captured by those parcels so that it wasn't spread to others who may not have expected it so--because that would be a change in intensity. And I think you've kept it that way,so that's good. Anybody else have any comments,questions? If not,let's go to Page 12. Now,this is an amendment to an existing PUD,so some of the language that we tried to correct in the Palermo can't necessarily apply to this because of the way—this product's already started.You've already got plats done and SDPs done and quite a bit. MR.ARNOLD: But I do think under Section 3.4(aX4),which is,again,the reference to the gatehouse,guardhouse,architectural features,et cetera-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all new. MR.ARNOLD: --that's new language that we added for Parcels IA through 3A,and I think it's probably wise that we put in the same development standards that we talked about in Palermo Cove just for consistency purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's new language;I would agree. MR.ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? That's on Page 13. On Page 3--I mean,on Item 3 of that,you have carports shall be permitted within parking areas,and garages shall be permitted at the edge of vehicular pavements. With the setbacks and all the other standards for those carports and garages,I would assume,then, that the accessory-structure language on the tables that follow apply to those carports or garages;is that a correct assumption? MR.ARNOLD: I think so. That was language that currently exists,Mr.Strain. It wasn't new language we added if--it's A3 that you're reading? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I was just curious,because we--that's the same kind of question that started our discussion on 4. But I think staff on that one—because carports would have to be accessory to units,that would be more or less your accessory standards that you would be looking at. I guess it could have been written better to begin with. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Didn't those come from the multifamily units? That's where you'd normally have a carport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's not restricted to them,but I mean,I would-- COMMISSIONER VONIER: But this is a single-family dwelling project now,so it probably doesn't make any difference. Carports aren't germane,I wouldn't think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this applies to the entire Wolf Creek PUD. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Oh,yeah;that's right.Okay,yeah. Everybody else,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page 14,anybody have any issues? That's the existing language. And on Page 15 is the new language. And we have some corrections from the other document that need to be Page 54 of 85 a-- t — f6,9-LK(1.6):XYJ 91.1K-L 65(116) 3N01N .V. 0 • IOD V 33w9 Y 31Y1i'LY.113111E)7 L KIZ Nv'�4g I GtdW and- .=;_:r4::..a .r-4:2,-� --- ?I3�1.1I`),t'% 7IAI' Clad }I'3.'Z�.� .�7�1�� Is.. %-"• 1•• 3/il `ONIXS3NI)N? NOSQIA 6Q ,AN sitAN Iu 16hO 4 emirs*+*men we, , ) ,wm AN � .. ��ro11 •�• !1I -------- _ =c1a = ____J -- !ill Iilt i gzi v ;I 1. 1 3 ��'i i' i 2 1.4- 3 1 11 tz, al Ai i 6 1 i 1 1 illI 11'l'; ' t4 6 4 411= it ‘:4 Cr) Cr.) ilf———-------—-- ..z.--_---=--.:-.:::_-_-_ -:;.:7-4 R 0 -Nig aI Wit. Trit\ts 1 II il O I ) low. ,13., I'll II i 4 '. -- -- .....:faVit..arrosat...__ 5 ll alb 1 I E ! I 1 * II S 11 Ii !I 16h 1 :I E M !I 11 I3 �1 ii ; 11 1h I a 11 11 1 V I 4 r if 11 - I t I,,,, ills I $ N ' —I-- • ,.4.__ ..„..___ �� ` ;I III! I 11 . I , I , 1 .it ' illi 1 i ; '' 11 If it I„ti "ii�9s0 . ill 1 ii 11: il sil il V I g I 1 I :II i 1 it ii '� I ( 1� j i , 1 eIII8 still3 7 :,„ L__J 1' Itit11 !HI ii 1 i'' ii it i - I IL , , y I i IE 1Pi �F ri , El3 E`11, 00111 Q 1l1 , 01 .. antium 1. 1 is t 10; : I. 41 .N 4110, Il ! I li I' I II Y .Iiitil..101 Standards, current edition, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the LDC. B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all development points of ingress and egress from any County collector or arterial roadway. Said lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first permanent certificate of occupancy (CO). C. Site-related improvements (as opposed to system-related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. D. Road Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with applicable County ordinances and the LDC. E. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to: safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. F. Interconnections shall be required by Collier County staff as a condition of SDP approval. G. The developer shall be responsible for its proportional share of the cost of a traffic signal system, or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement marking at any development entrance onto the County's collector/arterial roadway network, including both ends of the loop road, should a traffic signal be warranted. If warranted, upon the completion of the installation, inspection, burn-in period, and final approval/acceptance of said traffic signal it shall be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County, and will then be operated and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Department. H. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the RPUD Master Plan Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1, shall be considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 23 of 26 OR: 3635 PG: 1697 Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Assumptions Construction stake out excluded. Permit fees excluded. Impact fees excluded. Engineering fees excluded. Testing services excluded. Street lighting excluded(except VBR intersection). Conservation Area No mitigation,or replanting costs included(clearing only). Sewer p Sewer profile has been adjusted to include - XE j�C � service for the potential lots on the Comc b- �vvj� ve Drainage c Water / Will provide water service stubs or 2 7101)111111 17. Earthwork and Clearing ..1+ - -+ Fill from lakes is limited to only I.. vation depth below existing D' .+'. commendation. An average of 1.6 ft of fill over the' eveloped site. '1`` f 01.• Rock excavation,rock crushing and: k incidental to the lake exca r Paving `� , yj p T (< �� Sidewalk cost included in initial infrastructure. 1'{L 1- 1 Offsite Inner loop road to be built by others,including turn lanes to serve site(no costs assumed). Vanderbilt Beach Rd 6 lane improvements in place(I.e.force main). Vanderbilt Beach Rd temporary turn lanes not required(I.e.payment to county to build improvements to support project and to built as part of 6 lane improvements). 6°10 ��... EXHIBIT"D"-Page 3 of 3 26 THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50) from the Construction Loan, to be disbursed only pursuant to this Agreement. Lender acknowledges that this Agreement shall not constitute a draw against the Construction Loan fund, but that only such funds as are actually disbursed, whether pursuant to this Agreement or a provision of the Construction Loan, shall accrue interest. 4. The escrowed funds shall be released to the Developer only upon written approval of the Development Services Director who shall approve the release of the funds on deposit not more than once a month to the Developer, in amounts due for work done to date based on the percentage completion of the work multiplied by the respective work costs less ten percent (10%); and further, that upon completion of the work, the Development Services Director shall approve the release of any remainder of escrowed funds except to the extent of$305,790.65 which shall remain in escrow as a Developer guaranty of maintenance of the Required Improvements for a minimum period of one (1) year pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the Agreement. However, in the event that Developer shall fail to comply with the requirements of this Agreement, then the Lender agrees to pay to the County immediately upon demand the balance of the funds held in escrow by the Lender, as of the date of the demand, provided that upon payment of such balance to the County, the County will have executed and delivered to the Lender in exchange for such funds a statement to be signed by the Development Services Director to the effect that: • (a) Developer for more than sixty (60) days after written notification of such failure has failed to comply with the requirements of this agreement; (b) The County, or its authorized agent, will complete the work called for under the terms of the above-mentioned contract or will complete such portion of such work as the County, in its sole discretion shall deem necessary in the public interest to the extent of the funds then held in escrow; (c) The escrow funds drawn down by the County shall be used for construction of the Required Improvements engineering, legal and contingent costs and expenses, and to offset any damages, either direct or consequential, which the County may sustain on account of the failure of the Developer to carry out and execute the above-mentioned development work; and, (d) The County will promptly repay to the Lender any portion of the funds drawn down and not expended in completion of the said development work. 5. Written notice to the Lender by the County specifying what amounts are to be paid to the Developer shall constitute authorization by the County to the Lender for release of the specified funds to the Developer. Payment by the Lender to the Developer of the amounts specified in a letter of authorization by the County to the Lender shall constitute a release by the County and Developer of the Lender for the funds disbursed in accordance with the letter of authorization from the County. 6. The Required Improvements shall not be considered complete until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and the'Developer have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized-representatives this c-,iriciay ofJuly.,2005. DEVELOPER: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC, i a Florida limited liability company .+..r/ By: Catalina Land Group, (P J •T2. Y 5 ' ' a Florida corporation, illim"-- 11111W its Manager (Print Name: ft•d-lb Pt, _t ) By: W4 liam L. Hoover, President LENDER: Orion Bank, a Florida banking corporation liVA./,. rLal��rr�'1 etA By: tel / 06?-4,4G'e_.4/ - 1111/111 Name: ifrr��ereX K /hi L L(Print Name: Body A. Rasehte Title: 5 Efiet Dic 1''1',0 ee0,,5i bevy- , ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA LI:y101*: ., t?CK,Clerk . :` -* **,, 0,,''. • 1/4"- "k...,i420_, LA), Cir1.631Sk. • /ai e.--4021A:•....L.' %. - `` =; •�,,,;!y m Cle -At: ` Chairman `;.5 1 gria• >:•ure: At`tt.l, WHO L • Cy LL. pproved as•to*rrti and legal sufficiency: • Assistant County At ey S:Cnot K7iss FnWa.Ybmse'BV1 B.K.*9.bd.van v¢msm[Ns.doc GrecoSherry From: marc alien <mallencny@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday,June 22, 2017 8:12 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: PDI - PL20160000404 Wolf Creek RPUD preserve reduction Re: PDI - PL20160000404: Wolf Creek RPUD by the developer of parcels 3b and 9 to reduce preserves Dear Commissioner Taylor, First, let me be clear, I am not against development, nor against this developer's right to develop his property. The property is, however, within a residential planned urban development, Wolf Creek, and development should be in keeping with the agreements and ordinances associated with the RPUD, and should be compatible with other developments in the RPUD. There are two facets to this proposal; preserve reduction and residential density, although only one is being considered with this PDI. To be properly assessed the project should be looked at in its entirety, not piecemeal. Please consider the following: With respect to the preserves: There were no excess preserves or excess native vegetation prior to 2013 when a portion of Palermo Cove was brought into the Wolf Creek PUD. As noted in the CCPC minutes of 3/21/2013, it was intended that there be no net effect upon preserves and no increase in density in the Wolf Creek RPUD and Palermo Cove PUD, with the 2013 WCPUD and Palermo Cove amendments. Thus, the apparent "excess" should not have existed. The excess appeared when the required preserves for SFWMD, which were more than the county's native vegetation requirement, were added to the WCPUD map exhibit as preserve, but not taken into account as required native vegetation because only a portion was required. The excess was an unintended consequence and a reduction should therefore not be approved. With respect to the density: While other county PUDs may have dwelling unit "pools", Wolf Creek 1 In conclusion please consider: The PDI for a requested reconfiguration of the preserve map and decrease in preserves should not be approved as there should be no "excess" preserves. The companion PL 20160000157 should not be approved as the requested number of dwelling units is more than twice that allocated. The high density row house type development is not compatible with the original plan and not in keeping with the majority of the adjacent developments. Note that there is no opposition to development according to parameters of the original plan; a development of —104 dwelling units, which may be multifamily, possibly with a mild or moderate increase in density, but this proposal is not that. We have met with the developer in an attempt to work out something mutually agreeable. They have been unwilling to consider any compromise in their proposed density, to which they are not entitled according to allocation. Thank you for your time, Respectfully, Marc Allen, 7347 Acorn Way, Naples FL *OR 3635 PGS 1672-1699, recognized as valid and enforceable as documented in various county meeting minutes **Ordinances 2007-46 and 2013-37 ***BCC minutes 5/22-23/2007, CCPC minutes 3/21/13 3 GrecoSherry From: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 2:38 PM To: R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Board—this is in response to Mr. Anderson's email below. I believe you should ask Mr. Anderson to clarify what he means when he states: "The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong." The impression left by Mr.Anderson is that the prior 254 site plan was approved by the county, and that the new presently pending 215 unit site plan now reduces the approved site plan. Mr. Anderson should clarify whether the county ever approved a 254 site plan, or whether he is instead just referencing a concept plan on a sheet of paper that was never approved. Sincerely, Steve Bracci .t +4 \ti Wim, Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 1 This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by retum e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJrCc@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson<rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci 111\tir' Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 3 GrecoSherry From: Richard Yovanovich <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 3:48 PM To: R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Steve Bracci Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: Stock pf Buckstone Estates Purchase &Sale Agreement.pdf; Assignment of Construction Documents & Permits.pdf; Cost Sharing Agreement for the Development of Shared Access Road (OR 363....pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Commissioners, The petition before the BCC pertains to the modification of the preserve area. As I previously stated, it is my understanding that the Mederos parcel is limited to a density of 80 units. Mr. Bracci provided you with some of the legislative history supporting my understanding with regards to the PUD limiting density. Mr. Anderson stated to the BCC that the change in preserve area is related to increasing the lot size. However, the current plat submitted by his client clearly shows the purpose is to increase density beyond the PUD permitted density of 80 units for the Mederos parcel. Increasing density cannot occur through the Insubstantial Change process. Therefore, as long as the approval of the reduction in preserve size is conditioned upon development of the Mederos parcel being limited to 80 units, my client does not object to the petition filed by Mr. Anderson's client. I appreciate that the prior property owner had other site plans with a higher density. However, there is no evidence that the prior site plans were approved by the County. Accordingly,the prior site plans are irrelevant and not consistent with the PUD. As to the ownership of the 103 units,that is a private matter. We do not agree with Mr. Bracci's position on ownership of the units. Because Mr. Bracci spent most of his allotted time addressing ownership of the excess units, we are providing copies of some documents addressing the density rights in the PUD. The Purchase and Sale Agreement clearly identifies that Stock Development purchased the excess density. Also attached is an assignment document assigning developer rights to Black Bear Ridge Naples, LLC. Finally, the Cost Sharing Agreement addresses the excess density. At no time was the excess density assigned to Mr. Bracci's client. Mr. Bracci also spent a lot of time addressing the payment for the intersection improvements at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. My client has already agreed to pay the 30% share of Black Bear Ridge set forth in the Cost Sharing Agreement for the right and left turn lanes at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road.The 30%share was based upon an allotted density of 203 units. Only 100 units were built. Black Bear Ridge, LLC remains the owner of the unbuilt 103 units. The unbuilt units have not been assigned to the residents of Black Bear Ridge or to the Homeowner's Association. Please contact me if you have any further questions. 1 Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFYPASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTORNEYS.AT LAIC 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson a(�napleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From:Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent:Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson<rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci Nk �i Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 3 ASSIGNMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND PERMITS THIS ASSIGNMENT OF CONSTRU /"TION DOCUMENTS AND PERMITS (this "Assignment") is made and delivered on this 1(It' of December, 2010, by Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (the "Assignor"), to Black Bear Ridge Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability company(the"Assignee"), STATEMENT OF PURPOSE WHEREAS, Assignor has this day transferred its rights title and interest in that certain real property described as: Exhibit"A"attached hereto;and WHEREAS, Assignor desires to transfer to Assignee all of its right, title and interest in and to all construction plans, permits and government entitlements for its benefit including, but not limited to the items set forth on: 'Exhibit"B"attached hereto. WHEREAS: Assignor is the "Developer" in the Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements For Black Bear Ridge recorded on August 30, 2005 in Official Records Book 3879, at Page 1030 and amendments thereto (the "Declaration") and desires to assign its right, title and interest as "Developer" under the Declaration for the purpose of continuing the process of development of the Black Bear Ridge community and the sale of single family residences to third parties. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN and No/100 DOLLARS ($10.00)and other good and valuable consideration,Assignor hereby agrees as follows: 1. Assignor hereby grants, transfers and assigns to Assignee, its successors and assigns, all of Assignor's right, title and interest in, to and under the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements. Notwithstanding the provisions above to the contrary, Assignor shall retain its rights to the escrowed funds on deposit with Collier County pursuant to the Construction, Maintenance and Escrow Agreements for Subdivision Improvements with the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. 2. Assignor warrants and represents to Assignee that: (a) there are no other assignments or conveyances of any of Assignor's rights under the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements to any other person or entity; (b) Assignor has not done any act or failed to do any act which might prevent Assignee from,or limit Assignee in,acting under any of the provisions contained herein; (c) no default exists under the terms of the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements and no prohibition exists in any instrument to which Assignor is a party or by which Assignor is otherwise bound relating to Assignor's right to execute this IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Assignor has signed and sealed this Assignment or has caused this Assignment to be signed and sealed by duly authorized representatives the day and year first above written. WITNESSES: ASSIGNOR: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC,a Florida limited liability company By: Jody K.Vanderbilt Q. Grady Minor Its: Co-Manager Print e (Corporate Seal) Beth D. Lightner Print Name By ' Jody Vander � Michael D. Moore Its: Co-Manager Print Name Beth D. Lightner (Corporate Seal) Print Name STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /6/4"—day of December, 2010 by Q. Grady Minor as Co- Manager of Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company on behalf of the company, ho is personally known to nL, or who has produced (type o identification) as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. NOTE: If a type of identification is not inserted in the blank provided, then the person executing this instrument was personally known to me. if the words in the parenthetical "did not" are not circled, then the person executing this instrument did take an oath. - MywHrooa��s� N ry Public My Commission Expires: EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Lots 2,4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 38. 43,46, 47,48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64,67, Black Bear Ridge-.Phase 1, a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 43, Pages 89 through 92,of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. AND Lots 68, 69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, Black Bear Ridge- Phase 2,a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 47,pages 40 through 42, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. AND Lots 95, 96, 98, 99, Black Bear Ridge - Phase 3, a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 48,pages 71 and 72, of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. -- Exhibit RB" — • • 1.PARTIES AND PROPERTY; J �G �aC tapmcw� t�� 0- �lltt s- \It4rtt �1>�if 0]11- 0-Y (`Buyer") r agrees to buy and euckoton■ Motets(, LLC, a Florida liaitad liability company ("Seller) 3• agrees to sell the property described as:Street Address: 5sa attached legal dascriptioo 2. Legal Description: as* Attached L.yal Description c Intangible 1' and the following Peraenal Property:ties Ldd.udum •8 a (all collectively referred to as the"Property")on the terms and conditions set forth below. ,a•2.PURCHASE PRICE $ 3152s, 000.e „• (a)Deposit held in escrow by Conroy, boy a Durant $ 3V/ 5aQ. Y 12 (Escrow Agent") lend. (1u wile Z business ,. days of Effective Date) ,3• Escrow Agent's address: talo vaadarbilt Beach ?Rood Phone: 239.419,5700 ,a- (b)AAitiol,d.A tto-be-made to C ..v*Aye.,+' thin --daya.efterfffective-Bete $ n ja 15' ( .jp jr60rpW.,ltCj0i3L.Wiibia yGAfter-EffiCti,a✓6.Drzte S rife 5 (d)-Total flm.ncino jnm ph 4 al a tr (e)Other nit $ n/d ae (1)All deposits will be credited to the purchase price at closing.Balance to close,subject O s to adjustments and prorations,to be paid with locally drawn cashier's or official bank $ 3 r' Z r zb check(s)or wire transfer. 21 3.TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE;EFFECTIVE DATE:COMPUTATION OF TIME Unless this offer is signed by Seller and Buyer 22'and an executed copy delvered to al parties on Or before 20 days ,this offer will be withdrawn and the 23 Buyer's deposit,If any,will be returned.The Urns for acceptance of any counter offer wil be 3 days from the date th counter and 24 offer is delivered.The"Effective Date"of this Contract Is the date on which the last one.of the Seller and Buys hes signed 25 or initialed and delivered this offer or the final counter offer.Calendar days will be used when computing time periods,excepbard as time periods of 5 days or less.Time periods of 5 days or less will be computed without Including Saturday.Sunday.or national (see 27 legal holidays.Any time period ending on a Saturday,Sunday,or national legal holiday will extend until 5:00 p.m.of the next ti`dde>stua 25 business day.Time is of the essence in this Contract. 2s 4.CLOSING DATE AND LOCATION: within 30 days after the expiration of the Due V 3o- (a)Closing Date: This transaction will be closed aa-,.p j Feriod (Closing Date),unless specifically 31 extended by other provisions of this Contract.The Closing Date will prevail over all other time periods including,but not limited 32 to,Financing end Due Diligence periods.In the event insurance underwriting Is suspended on Cloning Date and Buyer is unable 33 to obtain property insurance, Buyer may postpone closing up to 5 days after the insurance underwriting suspension Is lifted. ta. (b)Location;Closing will take place in Collin: County,Florida.(If lett blank, 3s closing wil take place In the county where the Property is located.)Closing may be conducted by mall or electronic means. 3e•Buyer(tg..) �end Seller U C___)acknowledge receipt of a copy of this page,which Is Page 1 of 7 Pages. al W GC-3 Rev.10 V 0 29019 ftarlda Assocla len of lienee' .Al Rghts riasaa`red Thar .ortsars in ltrsaasd to tJ. Conroy - Talon Baaag(sat a (Maley. 5LC2 rw,,tranaactioadaat.soa. Iglet • en possession,which show all currently existing structuree.In the event this transaction does not close,all documents provided 93 by Seller will be returned to Seller within 10 days from the date this Contract is terminated. c e Cit Buyer will,at 0 Seller's 61 Buyers expense and within the time period allowed to deriver and examine title evidence, es obtain a current certified survey of the Property from a registered surveyor.it the survey reveals encroachments on the se Properly or that the Improvements encroach on the lands of another, liN Buyer wtl accept the Property with existing eV Ur• encroachments 0 such encroachments wll constitute a title defect to be cured within the Curative Period. of (d)Ingress and Egress: Seiler warrants that the Property presently has ingress and egress. 0e 7.PROPERTY CONDITION: Seiler will deliver the Property to Buyer at the time agreed in Its present'as Is condition,ordinary ,00 wear and tear excepted,and will maintain the landscaping and grounds in a comparable condition.Seller makes no warranties 101 other than marketability of title.By accepting the Property'as is,'Buyer waives all claims against Seiler for any defects In the ,02 Property.(Check(a)or(b)) ice 4(a)As Is: Buyer has inspected the Property or waives any right to inspect end :. pts the Property in its'as is`condition, toe• f (b)Due Ditlpence Period:Buyer we,at Buyer's expense and within ewe clays from Effective Date("Due Diligence ,as Period'),determine whether the Property is suitable,In Buyer's sole and absolute discretion,for Buyer's Intended use and ae development of the Property as specified in Paragraph 6.During the Due Diligence Period,Buyer may conduct any tests, 107 analyses,surveys and investigations('inspection')which Buyer deems necessary to determine to Buyer's satisfaction the ,0e Property's engineering,architectural,environmental properties;zoning and zoning restrictions:flood zone designation and ice restrictions;subdivision regulations;soil and grade;availability of access to public roads,water,and other utilities;consistency 110 with local,state and regional growth management and comprehensive land use plans;availability of permits,government r„ approvals and licenses;compliance with American with Disabilities Act absence of asbestos,soil and ground water 112 contamination;and other Inspections that Buyer deems appropriate to determine the suitability of the Property for Buyer's 113 intended use and development.Buyer we deliver written notice to Setter prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period ,,. of Buyer's determination of whether or not the Property is acceptable.Buyer's failure to comply with this notice requirement its wit constitute acceptance of the Property in its present"as is'condition.Seller grants to Buyer,its agents,contractors and ,1s assigns,the right to enter the Property at any time during the Due Diligence Period for the purpose of conducting Inspections; 117 provided,however,that Buyer,its agents,contractors and assigns enter the Properly and conduct inspections at their own na risk. Buyer will indemnify and hold Seller harmless from losses,damages,costs,claims and expenses of any nature,including 116 attorneys'tees at all levels,and torn liability to any person,arkerig from the conduct of any and all inspections or any work ,2o authorized by Buyer.Buyer will not engage in any activity that could result In a mechanic's lien being filed against the Property 121 without Seller's prior written consent.In the event this transaction does not dose,(1)Buyer will repair all dam to the in Property resulting from the Inspections and return the Property to the condition it was in prior to conduct of the inspections,and 123 (2)Buyer wit,at Buyer's expense,release to Seller ell reports and other work generated as a result of the Inspections.Should 121 Buyer deliver timely notice that the Property is not acceptable,Seller agrees that Buyers deposit we be immediately returned in to Buyer end the Contract terminated. ,2e (c)Walk-through Inspection:Buyer may,on the day prior to closing or any other time mutually agreeable to the parties, 127 conduct a final'walk-through"inspection of the Property to determine compliance with this paragraph and to ensure that at 128 Property is on the premises. in 8.OPERATION OF PROPERTY DURING CONTRACT PERIOD: Sailer wit continue to operate the Property and any business 133 conducted on the Property in the manner operated prior to Contract and will take no action that would adversely Impact the 131 Property,tenants,lenders or business,if any.My changes,such as seetkeeirecariespaceethat materially affect the Property or 132-Buyer's intended use of the Property wilt be permitted ti;only with Buyer's consent o without Buyers consent. *Seller contracting to sell a lot(a) Le 131 9.CLOSING PROCEDURE 134 ter)Possession and Occupancy:Seiler well delver possession and occupancy of the Property to Buyer at closing.Seller will las provide keys,remote controls,and any security/access codes necessary to operate all locks,mailboxes,and security systems. 138 (b)Coats:Buyer we pay buyer's attorneys'fees,taxes and recording fees on notes,mortgages and financing statements and 137 recording fees for the deed.feeler wit pay aster's attorneys'fees, nd recording fees for cloc urnente needed ,3a to cure title defects,If Seller is obligated to d iSCharge any encumbrance at or prior to closing and fails to do so,Buyer may use / ,ere purchase proceeds to satisfy the encumbrances. �/ *and tiger on deed. ao (c)Documents:Seller sell provide the dewed;bill of sale;mechanic's len Octave;originals of those assignable service and 141 maintenance contracts that will be assumed by Buyer after the Closing Date and setters to each service contractor from Seller 147 Buydr(')( )and Seller( )f 1 ocletowledge reoMit of tl tea of this page,which Is Page 3 of 7 Pages. OC-3 Pay.to.Kne eD 2003 Ronda Amoeba,of ROTOR" AA RION Fiavwnd Mi. .olt....r. Ls ll000sod to [J. Coatoy - Taloa uaarguseoL. !silky. LKt ww.tr.asratLoadamk.ous. 95 in full settlement of any claims,upon which this Contract wit terminate or(2)seek specific performance.If Beller retains the las deposit.Seiler will pay the Brokers named In Paragraph 20 testy percent of all forfeited deposits retained by Seller(to be split 197 equally among the Brokers)up to the tut amount of the brokerage fee. 1 e 14.ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS: In any claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Contract,the prevailing party, 1%, which for purposes of this provision wit Include Buyer,Seiler and Broker,wit be awarded reasonable attorneys'fees,costs,and 200 expenses, 201 16.NOTICES: M notices will be in writing and may be delivered by mail,personal delivery,or electronic means.Parties agree to Zoe send at notices to addresses specified on the signature page(s).Any notice,document,or Item given by or delivered to an attorney 203 or-real estate licensee Inductng a transaction broker)representing a party will be as effective as if given by or delivered to that party. 204 18.DISCLOSURES: los (a)Commen3fel Reel Estate Sales Commission Use Act The Florida Commercial Real Estate Sales Commission Lien Act 205 provides that when a broker has earned a commission by performing licensed services under a brokerage agreement with you, 207 the broker may claim a lien against your net sales proceeds for the broker commission.The broker's ten rights under the act 2ca cannot be waived before the commission is earned. lac (b)Special Assessment Liens Imposed by PirWIc Body:The Property may be sub)ect to unpaid special assessment lien(s) 210 imposed by a public body.(A public body includes a Community Development District.)Such liens,If any,shell be paid as set 211 forth in Paragraph 9.(e). 212 (c)Radon(tae:Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that,when It has accumulated in a building In suf8r9ant quantities, 213 may present health risks to persons who are exposed to It over time.Levels of radon that exceed federal and state guidelines 214 have been found in buildings In Florida.Additional information regarding radon and radon testing may be obtained from your 215 county public health unit. 2,a (d)Energy-Efficiency Rating Information:Buyer acknowledges receipt of the Information brochure required by Section 217 553.966,Florida Statutes. 215 1T.RISK OF LASS: 219 (a)tf,after the Effective Dote and befdre closing,the Property is damaged by fie or other casualty,Seller will bear the risk of 22o loss and Buyer may cancel this Contract without lebiity and the deposit(s)will be returned to Buyer.Alternatively,Buyer will 221 have the option of purchasing the Property at the agreed upon purchase price and Seller will transfer to Buyer at closing any 222 insurance proceeds,or Seller's claim to any insurance proceeds payable for the damage.Seiler will cooperate with and assist 223 Buyer in collecting any such proceeds. 224 (b)If,after the Effective Date and before dosing.any part of the Property Is taken in condemnation or under the right of eminent 225 domain,or proceedings for such taking will be pending or threatened,Buyer may cancel this Contract without liability and the 226 depostt(s)wti be returned to Buyer..Alternativey,Buyer we have the option of purchasing what is left of the Property at the 227 agreed upon purchase price and Sailor WI transfer to the Buyer at dosing the proceeds of any award,or Selier's calm to any ne award payable for the taking.Seller wig cooperate with and assist Buyer in cofecting any such award. 227 113.ASSIGNABILITY;PERSONS BOUND: This Contract may be assigned to a related entity, and otherwise O IS riot assigneble / 230'61 is assignable.The terms"Buyer,''Seller and'Broker'may be singular or plural.This Contract is binding upon Buyer,Seller 231 and their heirs,personal representatives,successors and assigns(if assignment Is permitted). 232 1 S.MISCELLANEOUS: The terms of this Contract constitute the entire agreement between Buyer and Seller.Modifications of 233 this Contract we not be binding unless In writing,signed and delivered by the party to be bound.Signatures.initials,documents 234 referenced in this Contract,counterparts and written modifications communicated electronically or on paper will be acceptable 235 for all purposes,Including dellvery,and will be binding,Handwritten or typewritten terms inserted in or attached to this Contract 233 prevail over preprinted terms.If any provision of this Contract is or becomes invalid or unenforceable,all remaining provisions will 237 continue to be fully effective.This Contract will be construed under Florida law and will not be recorded in any public records. 231'Puysr i, )U end SMer L i U SeiCIOwl6tiga=SO of a CON tit itis Pegg.Witt!i8 Page bat 7 Pages. cc-s Rev.taws 02009 Florida Acsoomlan Cf REoac55' At Wilts Reievad rasa tat[rurti is ltcs a.d to 12. Oaasoy - lidos p.m.s.mrt a lomat'', LLC] rrr•tr.a.eottonMnt,caa. 231 Each person signing this Contract on behalf of a party that is a business entity represents and warrants to the other party that 292 such signatory has full power and authority to enter into and perform this Contract in accordance with Its terms and each person . 203 executing this Contract and other documents on behalf of such party has been duly authorized to do so. Date: u�Ll5i" 31 r 2.G zea atur Duyet) t C{ /�. �J 23e- 1,Y;r ye t 4Cc. 1 7T k. '2`►C6?1 t/ Tax 1D No.: S-(73/ O(-f28 237 (Typed or Printed Name of Buyer) 23e'TItIe: Mo 3eA Telephone: 231- 54Z-734(1 23r Date: 3(s (Signature of Buys.) Wit. • Tax lD No.: sae (Typed or Printed Name of Buyer) 3a3-Tale; Telephone: ale Buyer's Address for purpose of notice: X FaceknUa: E-maTh Sucitataw taker . !1 Baited liabilityQ (1 ^ l 39C8�nx _ / ! i Dote: 1 I`i L� 1 0 • At 3W (Signature of Seger) acs Q. Greedy Isiaor Tex ID No.: 54 2 23 Xe (Typed or punted Name of Seiler) • I�3,a'Title: Co-tiaoaver Telephone: ZPi- L2(a 0 ^ 3 2,1-) (... Buck/stone Estates, LLC, a Florida liadted Iiablity '} Date: CT--(L-1 — .ts( o 312 (Signature of Seller) � � , 2 � 3 2'�-.3 4 313- Ifichael D. 1100E4 Tax D No.: 314 (Typed or Printed Name of Seller) 315 rifle, -1tenagrez / Telephone:2- — ata'sellers Address for purpose or notice: G 10 Mit t �t Es1 , aO�1D Vr.JrA c1 i e&h. J2 � lza1 iU,pms� Fi 3 V/C a,r Facsimile: Z ) t " 4'y 7— cI/it'D E-rttait The Florida Aaaocation d RFALrova•makat no ntpneentanan ae to the Ypal wildly or adequacy d any provision of this rent In any specific transaction,This aanderd'mad bum ehald not be used In oornples transactions or with Wendy,idem or addllons.Thk torn Is waggle for uu by the antis real setas Mu/dry and Is nil blended to ider* the user as a Ftseaoi .Ram rod'u a tapishred oolediw members*nwk which may be used aft+by real estate licensees who we mortars d the NATIONAL ASSOQATK 4 OF REALTC]fiS•end who eubsate to its Code Of Ethics. The copyright taws of the lkrlted States(17 UB..Cods,build the Lmeu*anted reproduclbn at the form by any means indudlp facdrnie a oonputertted tortes. 3113'Buyer trin}(._....)end Star( 'r( )edvowiedZe fecept of B copy of this pegs,which Is Page 7 or 7 Pages. CC-3 Rea.1009 0 2009 Florida Association of F5ALwns' Al Bights Reesrved Mt. ■cltware le licenn+d to !J. Convoy - Taloa Yaaapeaot a Malty. LLC] www.traaea.tio.4ak.eaa. ADDENDUM TO FAR COMMERCIAL CONTRACT BLACK BEAR RIDGE This Addendum to FAR Commercial Contract("Addendum")is made and entered into as of the date set forth on the Contract to which this Addendum is attached("Contract") by and between the parties set forth as Seller and Buyer on said Contract, for the sale and purchase of the following real property: Those Black Bear Ridge subdivision Lots as specifically set forth in the Exhibit to the Commercial Contract(the"Property"). The Contract and this Addendum shall be collectively refereed to as the Contract. IN THE EVENT ANY PROVISION OF THIS ADDENDUM CONFLICTS IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ADDENDUM SHALL CONTROL. 1. IT IS EXPRESSLY AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE BUYER THAT ANY i` EXPRESS REPRESENTATIONS,WARRANTIES,OR STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE CONTRACT, WHETHER REFERRING TO THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, OR WHETHER REFERRING TO THE EXISTENCE OF FEATURES, FUNCTIONS OR SERVICES RELATING TO OR SERVING THE PROPERTY (INCLUDING, BY WAY OF EXAMPLE ONLY, WHETHER THE PROPERTY HAS PARTICULAR TYPES OF UTILITY SERVICES), ARE SPECIFICALLY WANED, DISCLAIMED, AND RENDERED NULL AND VOID AND THE PROPERTY IS BEING SOLD "AS IS-WHERE IS" AND SELLER MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY AND HAS NO OBLIGATIONS FOR REPAIRS THEREOF. 2. APPROVAL BY IBERIA BANK. Buyer acknowledges that Iberia Bank ("Iberia") has a Mortgage on the Property. The Contract is contingent upon a)the approval of the purchase price, terms of the Contract and the Closing Statement;b)Iberia's agreement to accept a payoff.which is less than the balance due on the loan, and : c) Iberia's release and satisfaction of the mortgage upon receipt of the discounted Closing payoff. Iberia shall have twenty(20)days from the Effective Date to approve the purchase price and contract terms (the "Approval Deadline"). In the event that Iberia has not delivered written acceptance within the Approval Deadline, either party may terminate the Contract by delivering written notice to the other. Buyer's right to terminate shall cease to exist if Seller gives notice to Buyer that Seller waives this contingency or that Lender Approval has been obtained prior to Buyer giving Seller notice of termination. TIME PERIODS. All time periods under the Contract shall commence from the date Seller W,./ either delivers notice to Buyer of Lender Approval or the date Seller has waived the contingency. Buyer and Seller agree to extend the Closing Date in the Contract, not to exceed ten (10)days if Iberia 6/ requires additional time to complete the short sale transaction. 3. ASSIGNMENT OF PERMITS,PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. At Closing, Owner to assign(I)its development rights,density rights,drainage rights,and allocations to Buyer(ii)all architectural, engineering, building and similar plans, specifications,drawings,studies, reports, plats, permits surveys, work product, and the like related to the Land and Improvements, (iii)all permits, approvals, and applications with any governmental authorities pertaining to the Land or any portion thereof, and all sewer taps, allocations and agreements for utilities and utility deposits, if any, (iv) all rights and interests appurtenant to the Land and Improvements arising out of or related to any property owners associations, declaration, reciprocal easement agreement,or other encumbrance affecting title to the Land in connection with a common development scheme with other lands, and other embellishments now or in the future on or appurtenant to the Land, and all other intangible property relating to the Land,if any("Intangible Property")to Buyer. 3467972 OR: 3635 PG: 1672 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 09/01/2004 at 10:13AM DWIGHT B. BROCI, CLERK This instrument was prepared RIC FIE 239.50 without an opinion of title and INDEIING 3.00 7 after recording return to: Retn: I Gregory L.Urbancic,Esq. GOODLBTTE COLEMAN IT AL Ni Goodlette,Coleman&Johnson,P.A. 4001 TAMIAMI TR N #300 4001 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 300 NAPLES FL 34103 Naples,Florida 34103 (239)435-3535 (space above this line for recording data) COST SHARING AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHARED ACCESS ROAD THIS COST SHARING AG ' :1 DEVELOP NT OF A SHARED ACCESS ROAD(this"Agreement" . ent -• ..= e I:: ,?.y of , 2004, by and among the following: (i)Wek d Estates,LLC,a ••' el tted liability c pany("Wolf Creek Estates"); (ii) William L. Hoover�as L ustee ..of,the Fallen Timb.+ Lnd Trust dated November 5, 2003 ("Hoover/Fallen Timbers"); (iO) l�arld indner, as'J ustee • de\ unrecorded Land Trust UTT/D January 4, 1999 ("Lindner/T4tst " it « a: ••• • r stee under unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D May 21, 1999 ("Lindner2� ae( jp4 •'• ,• es, LC, a Florida limited liability •company("Buckstone Estatesl'). ` r WITNESSET ' THA WAFREAS, the parties` e = own adjacent rea im/ Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,Collier County,Flo =• • • "S. WHEREAS, the parties hereto + • fo_1 t properties which are the subject of this Agreement,with said individual properties being legally described on Exhibit"A"attached hereto and made a part hereof: OWNER: PARCEL: Lindner/Trust 1 Parcel 1 Lindner/Trust 2 Parcel 2 Wolf Creek Estates Parcel 4 Wolf Creek Estates Parcel 5 Wolf Creek Estates Parcel 6 Buckstone Estates Parcel 7 Hoover/Fallen Timbers Parcel 8(west half) Buckstone Estates Parcel 8(east half) Buckstone Estates Parcel 9 Lindner/Trust 1 Parcel 10 Buckstone Estates Parcel 11 1 OR: 3635 PG: 1674 Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road corridors, located between Livingston Road and Collier Boulevard. The Parcels are permitted to have differing land uses but the actual land uses shall be compatible with each other. The Parcels shall be developed using a similar architectural theme along the access roads, quality buffering and screening between the differing land uses, and common site design techniques. All Parcels shall be designed and developed to minimize any negative impacts on abutting and neighboring Parcels. 5. Zoning. Each owner (and the owner's successor, assign, and successor in title) agrees that it shall not object to any rezoning and/or development consistent with the following provisions: (a) Parcel 10 may be rezoned and developed for specialty retail and office land uses. The most westerly 175 feet of Parcel 10 shall be designed and developed only for offices, banks, drug stores, sit-down restaurants, retail shops, and similar intensity commercial uses, and shall not be permitted to have gas stations,convenience stores,fast food restaurants,and stand alone bars or lounges. (b) Parcel 1, Parcel 2, and Parcels 4 through 9, inclusive, may be developed for residential use. Said parcels have been rezoned to the Wolf Creek PUD, Collier County Ordinance No. 03-45 (hereinafter "Wolf Creek PUD") and shall be developed according to the development standards within the Wolf Creek PUD. Any owner of one of -- y apply for a PUD Amendment to the Wolf Creek PUD through Collier County for - •.`,a - �i. oses without written permission of the remaining owner(s) of the Wolf Cr. is property: i -*I ' d moderate intensity changes to said owner's own parcel or(ii)to inco additional property inn e olf Creek PUD, including,without limitation, Parcel 3,Parcel 11, ay�d/o • =orin• ear el wit • S tion 34 owned by Comcast. Any amendment to the Wolf Creek/PUOI sh 'tn4in .'. the a e p- •tted principal uses and the same or substantially the same develoOm- _.i. ', , - e f Creek PUD at the time of such amendment. Further, any amen. sh•r b . -a, o -a velkpment consultants experienced in Collier County PUD rezoni' , '14i •, • .„ocess.s. _ (c) The owner of 1 or Parcel 2 have •sigh at .' ` e,as to said owner's parcels,to request a rezoning to allow d `v o 3 ment for residents• ^use s •al; hes, private schools, child care facilities,and/or adult living facili : L_ (d) The owner of Parcel 1 as a as to said owner's parcel, to request a rezoning to allow development for residenha'h-tis, «, .. es,private schools, child care facilities, and/or adult living facilities. (e) The owner of Parcel 11 has the right at any time, as to said owner's parcel, to request a rezoning to allow development for residential uses,churches,and/or child care facilities. (f) Any 3-story buildings on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be setback a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet from the North-South Road (as hereinafter defined)between Points "A" through "D" as shown on Exhibit "B"attached hereto and made a part hereof. Additionally, any buildings on Parcel 1 or Parcel 2 shall have tile, metal, or wood roofs, and either a carport or garage for each residential unit. None of the Parcels shall be developed for Affordable Housing, as defined within the Collier County Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance,as amended from time to time. 6. Design,Permitting,and Construction of North-South Access Road. (a) General. The parties intend for a 2-lane north-south access road to be constructed generally in the location shown on Exhibit "B" from Point "A" to Point "F" (the "North-South Road"). All references herein to a particular "Point" shall mean and refer to those labels on Exhibit "B". The 3 011: 3635 PG: 1676 either (i) all owners agree in writing that the North-South Road should remain private or (ii) the dedication of the North-South Road is not accepted by Collier County. In the event the owners of the Parcels agree to maintain the North-South Road as a private road, the written agreement among the owners shall make a provision for the on-going maintenance and repair of the North-South Road and a means for sharing the costs and expenses of the same. In the event the North-South Road including any of the appurtenances thereto, or any portion thereof) is not accepted by Collier County, the owners shall enter into a written agreement regarding the on-going maintenance and repair thereof. All owners agree to promptly execute such documentation and provide such information as may be requested or required by Collier County to complete the dedication. (f) Maintenance of North-South Road. Any Developer (as hereinafter defined) completing construction of the North-South Road or any segment thereof shall maintain and repair, in keeping with all governmental permits and approvals, such portion of the North-South Road, until such time as the North-South Road is dedicated to (and such dedication is accepted by) Collier County, and Collier County accepts the North-South Road for maintenance, in accordance herewith. The owners shall be obligated to reimburse the Developer (as the case may be) for their pro rata share of the costs and expenses incurred by the Developer in connection with the maintenance and repair of the North-South Road (or portion thereof) for so long as the Developer is obligated to maintain and repair same as provided herein. Each owner's pro rata share the-naintance and repair cost shall be the same as each owner's share for the initial constructio •f t k .6Chi .• •on. Each owner shall deliver its pro rata share of such maintenance and repairs,; . a e Deve •..- ' ... five (5) business days of receipt of a bill therefore from the Develop j the event that the �rrth outh Road (including any of the appurtenances thereto, or any portio not acce•ted b Col er County as a public road and/or for maintenance within one (1/) y r a date oft., pletio, of\the North-South Road, then the Developer shall no longer be resp'o•:-.04 • --.i : r..-,: r of, the North-South Road and the owners of the Parcels shall agree . .n T - F e o• • 11 o futOre maintenance, which method may include, without limitati n {: '• .�u• .f • •o if uni i •ev lo,,� ' ent district pursuant to Section 190, Florida Statutes ("CDD" b N • • .• • . • • er h atr association("MHOA"). In the event a CDD is formed for th � i•ose of maintaining_6,id r;•ai/4 4,the North-South Road, the CDD shall have the responsibility fo `7 inning the mainterii ee 5 it work and paying the cost and expense of the same. Notwiths , • anything to the cons, e CDD shall only have financial responsibility pertaining to the lanbenefited amend,°S' `� d by the CDD. The CDD shall have no fmancial obligations to or for any p•. el • • "f tto TCDD. The CDD shall have the authority to collect for such cost and expense in ma . ..• e- :ith-South Road through assessments or such other collection mechanism as may be authorized pursuant to Section 190,Florida Statutes. In the event a MHOA is formed, the MHOA shall have the responsibility for performing the maintenance and repair work and paying the cost and expense of the same. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the MHOA shall only have financial responsibility pertaining to the land which is benefited and burdened by the MHOA. The MHOA shall have no fmancial obligations to or for any parcels not subjected to the MHOA. The MHOA shall have the authority to collect for such cost and expense in maintaining the North-South Road through assessments. (g) Mederos Property (Parcel 3). Parcel 3, owned by Mederos, is not included within the scope of this Agreement. It is agreed that in the event that one or more signatories hereto(individually or collectively) or Prime Investors and Developers, Inc. acquire Parcel 3 prior to construction of Segment 2 of the North-South Road, then said party will cooperate by promptly granting such easements as may be necessary to develop Segment 2 of the North-South Road. The alignment of the North-South Road shall thereafter be adjusted onto Parcel 3, with the width of the road on Parcel 3 being the greater of the following: (i) thirty (30) feet or (ii) one-half of the width of the North-South Road as proposed for the segment of the North-South Road encompassing Parcel 3 and Parcel 8. The conveyance of such an easement by such owner(s)prior to Collier County's approval of the roadway drawings and plans for the 5 OR: 3635 PG: 1678 9. Access Easements/Signature Entry Feature. In order to construct the North-South Road,various road right-of-way easements will be required from the owners of the Parcels. To the extent not previously provided,the owners of the Parcels agree to convey the easements described in this section at no cost to the other owners within twenty(20)days of a receipt of a written request from the Developer (as defined in Section 11 below), and further agree to the conditions and limitations described in this section. (a) Parcel 2/Parcel 8. The owner of Parcel 2 shall provide a non-exclusive 30-foot wide permanent road right-of-way easement along the east 30 feet of Parcel 2 for the benefit of all Parcels. The owner of Parcel 8 shall provide a non-exclusive 30-foot wide permanent road right-of-way easement along the west 30 feet of Parcel 8 for the benefit of all Parcels. The owner of Parcel 9 shall provide a non-exclusive 30-foot wide permanent road right-of-way easement along the west 30 feet of Parcel 9 for the benefit of all Parcels. Where the minimum road width is required by Collier County Transportation Services to be wider than 60 feet, the easement width provided shall be increased the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the North-South Road, with the center of the roadway remaining on the half section line where possible(unless the Developer controls the land on both sides of the roadway, in which case the Developer shall determine in its sole discretion where to locate the centerline of the North-South Road for said portions); provided, however, that where a wider road right-of-way is needed to provide a turn lane into a particular project the additional road right-of-way easement area shall come from the parcel needing such turn lane. (b) Parcel 1/Parcel 10. F o int"A-2"to�oi the owner of Parcel 1 shall provide a non-exclusive 42-foot wide pe eit,t`oad right-of-way ease t a' ng the east 42 feet of Parcel 1 and the owner of Parcel 10 shall pro "de rtun-eAcl sive_42_fipt wid nent road right-of-way easement along the western 42 feet of P cel 0, 1r ..r - benefii of all ) arce s. From Point"B"to Point "C", the roadway width is intended to * .a,syr: s ,• - ght of--way to 60-foot road right-of- way. The owner of Parcel 1 shall • • 'di o ! I e �, •, to 42,foot wide permanent road right- of-way easement along the ea,t, I to '2 et flP. c 1'1 and .w t�qf Parcel 10 shall provide a non- exclusive 30-foot to 42-foot 14d ,-` ..„, en • a '`4,f-IN• along the western 30 to 42 feet of Parcel 10, each for the ben .' all Parcels. The acil dth c s ch road right-of-way shall be as determined by Collier County ..rtation Services-.*, - :p((t 1eview of the roadway plans for Segment 1. Where the minimum •: • .dth is required by forunty Transportation Services to be wider than contemplated herein,th- -as: t width provid-: . "CP cel 1 and Parcel 10 shall be increased 96 the minimum amount necessary to acc..-ig r C•ori4 .: ? Road. (c) Purpose of Easements. These easements provided for in this section are for the purpose of providing unrestricted ingress and egress for all of the Parcels and shall also be for the construction of the North-South Road, including all necessary or required utilities, sidewalks, water management facilities,landscaping, and signage. (d) Signature Entry Feature. (i) Permitted Owners/Location. The easements described in subsection 9(b) of this Agreement (or in a separate easement if desired by the owner of Parcel 1 or Parcel 10) shall permit the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, the owner of Parcels 7 through 9, or the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ("Permitted Owners") to construct a signature entry feature (hereinafter"Signature Entry Feature") upon no more than 400 square feet in area and located north of where the North-South Road intersects with Vanderbilt Beach Road. For purposes of this section, the term Permitted Owners shall be deemed to include and mean, as to each individual Permitted Owner, said Permitted Owner's successor, assign, or successor in title. The Signature Entry Feature may be constructed at any time subsequent to the commencement of construction of the North-South Road between Points "A-2"and "C". The Signature Entry Feature may be located, at the sole discretion of the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, in either the 7 OR: 3635 PG: 1680 the sign face(s) for the project on Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive and one-half of the sign face(s) for the project on Parcels 4 through 6,inclusive; and (b) each non-constructing owner not opting out of the shared signage shall notify the Constructing Owner of its project name for the sign(s) within thirty (30) days of notice from the Constructing Owner or the Constructing Owner shall leave the sign face blank for any non-constructing owner not timely notifying the Constructing Owner of its project name; and (c) each of share of the sign face(s) shall be equally visible to both westbound and eastbound motorists traveling along Vanderbilt Beach Road. (vi) Cost. The costs for design, permitting, and construction of the Signature Entry Feature shall be shared as described in this paragraph. In the event the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 elect to participate, the costs shall be divided as follows: one-third of the total costs shall be paid by the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive; one-third by the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2; and one-third by the owners of Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. In the event the owners of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 elect not to participate (and Parcel 10 is not substituted), the costs shall be divided as follows: one-half of the total costs shall be paid by the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive; and one-half by the owners of Parcels 7 through 9,inclusive. ..-----------7-----, '. „(^"”R v Q! T (vii) Payment. 1:119,,..,'' L cling Own 'vide the non-constructing owners with a detailed billing statement for theiV . ,• ction cost within fo iv 45) days after the completion of the initial construction and installatloof igna {e Entry Feature, d each of said non-constructing owners shall remit payment to the Co , glt iez' . . thYrtc (30) ys�f the receipt of such bill. If any such bill(s) is not paid within aid p:. . 0. •, •i,4: • t c f all such invoices together with interest thereon at nine percent .- • , ('I/o s • 1 +i hien on said non-constructing owner's o unless and until aid,(h� . , ,1116/.1,-""ma r. oro c such lien in the Public Records property, of Collier County, Florida aga' e . -co ,.. .c - . er .a ,, d bring legal action against the non-constructing owner for ,n-constructing own.Cs c.ns� n costs; and (c) may, at the Constructing Owner's option, f `eglo - any such lien desc'i e a the same manner as a mortgage lien on real property, and interest, 't d reasonable attorne i.' of any such action will be added to the amount of any such lien, and s verable in e Constructing Owner prevails in any such action. iTIE 1-%C (viii) Maintenance. The Signature Entry Feature shall be maintained and repaired from time to time,which maintenance and repair shall be performed in accordance with all governmental permits and approvals. The Constructing Owner (or its successor or assign) shall be responsible for such maintenance and repair, unless otherwise agreed among the owners participating in the Signature Entry Feature. The costs for any such maintenance or repair to the Signature Entry Feature shall be shared in the same manner described in Section 9(d)(v) above relating to construction costs. Any owner may assign its obligations for payment of such maintenance and repair costs to a property owners' association or condominium association formed with respect to such owner's parcel(s). The Constructing Owner may assign its obligation for maintenance and repair of the Signature Entry Feature to a property owners' association or condominium association formed with respect to the Constructing Owner's parcel(s). (e) Directional Signage. At the request of the owner of Parcels 4 though 6, inclusive, or the owners of Parcels 7 though 9, inclusive, the owner of Parcel 10 shall provide the owners of Parcels 4 through 6 and Parcels 7 through 9 with a non-exclusive sign easement having an area of four(4) square feet for the purpose of erecting and sharing a directional sign along the eastern side of the North-South Road, where the North-South Road intersects with the access road into Parcel 10. The easement shall be in a location such that that the directional sign is easily visible to northbound motorists. 9 OR: 3635 PG: 1682 acknowledge, consent to,join in, and deliver all documents, applications and other papers which may be necessary to make such applications or to obtain the Road Permits and Approvals. (c) Development of Segment 1. Upon completion of the final plans and specifications for Segment 1,and approval of the same by Collier County,the Developer shall furnish such finals plans and specifications for the construction of Segment 1,including sidewalks, accompanying utilities,landscaping, signage (except for the signature entry feature), and other related improvements to the other owners for their review. No sooner than fifteen (15) days after such plans and specifications have been delivered to the other owners, the Developer shall seek bids for the construction and installation of Segment 1 from not less than three (3) qualified, licensed contractors previously experienced in Collier County as road contractors. At the sole option of the Developer, the Developer may also seek up to two (2) bids from qualified, licensed contractors not previously experienced in Collier County. When such bids are solicited by the Developer, the Developer shall notify the other owners and provide them with a copy of the request for bid and a list of the contractors from whom bids are being solicited. When the bids are returned, the Developer shall provide copies of all completed bids to the other owners. In the event the Developer selects any complete bidder other than the lowest complete bidder,the Developer shall provide the other owners with its reason(s) for selecting the applicable bidder, and the other owners shall have the right of approval with regard thereto, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. If any owner fails to notify the Developer in writing of their disapproval of the selected bidder within five (5) business days after s ,_ftise,thereof from the Developer, such selection shall be deemed to have been appy dic b :Sh" M j twithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the other own l li e no right 1 al if the Developer selects the low complete bidder. )/ No less than thirty-five,(35 da • :. to •mmen•'ng con tru tion of Segment 1,the Developer shall provide the owners of the o icels •F• " : Owners") with the following: (i) a cost estimate for the construe on • 1, in'lid:gig . zI' oftingency (hereinafter"Road Plan"); and (ii) a breakdown of the c sx,,: o e •a ,:e P.'+el (a.;io{each of the Parcels, "Individual Construction Cost"). The No • •n tt, - .-.11 h•-:` `' the (35) days from the receipt of said materials from Developer ce said owner's Indi s ual iCo2 tion Cost into an escrow account with an escrow agent designated'` ' e Developer, whi sc/oy :4, t shall be an attorney licensed in the State of Florida. The cons• olio funds deposited wi aa- w ow agent shall be available to the Developer through customary cons•. cieqp• • •ws. No later Ifo -five(45)days after the Developer's receipt of a certificate of completion, -' I •• •-lQt' v ile the construction fund account. Any excess funds shall be returned in a pro rata •.i•i •• -F`•i•n the Individual Construction Costs paid. In the event of a shortage of construction funds to 4cover the costs and expenses of the Developer in constructing Segment 1 (other than due to non-payment by a Non-Constructing Owner), the Non- Constructing Owners shall be responsible for paying their pro rata share of such shortage. Developer shall provide the Non-Constructing Owners with commercially reasonable documentation which evidences the additional costs and expenses incurred by the Developer and the pro rata share of said costs and expenses for each Non-Constructing Owner. Each Non-Constructing Owner shall have twenty-five (25)days to pay its share of such shortage to the Developer. (d) Non-Payment-Segment 1. Except as provided in subsection (e) below, in the event timely payment of the applicable Individual Construction Cost is not received from any Non-Constructing Owner, then (i) the amount of all such Individual Construction Cost together with interest thereon at nine percent per annum(9%) shall constitute a lien on said Non-Constructing Owner's property,unless and until paid; (ii)the Developer may record each such lien in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida against the Non-Constructing Owner's property and bring legal action against the Non-Constructing Owner for the Non-Constructing Owner's construction costs; and(iii)may, at the Developer's option, foreclose any such lien described above in the same manner as a mortgage lien on real property, and interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees of any such action will be added to the amount of any such lien, and shall be 11 OR: 3635 PG: 1684 business days after depositing the same in a letter box or by other means placed within the possession of the United States Postal Service,properly addressed to the party in accordance with the foregoing and with the proper amount of postage affixed thereto. In the event of any notice via facsimile transmission,a hard copy shall be sent via regular mail on the day of such transmission. Any such transmission received after 5:00 p.m.Eastern Standard Time(or Daylight Savings Time,whichever then applicable)shall be deemed to have been given on the next following business day. The addressees and addresses for the purpose of this Section may be changed by any party by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided herein. For the purpose of changing such addresses or addressees only, unless and until such written notice is received, the last addressee and respective address stated herein shall be deemed to continue in effect for all purposes. 13. Governing Law/Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with Florida law (exclusive of choice of law rules). Venue for any action arising hereunder shall lie exclusively in Collier County,Florida. 14. Prevailing Party. The prevailing party in any litigation involving this Agreement shall be entitled to recover from the non-prevailing party all attorneys' fees,paralegal fees and costs incurred in connection with such litigation, at arbitratioin .or-a.. : ' otherwise, including reasonable attorneys' fees • and paralegal fees in the enforcement of ---.`ii;- , ,' der. The owners of the parcels herein described shall only be liable for/r5 on of this • a - -nt during their respective periods of ownership, and in the event any/atxt o is brought for reco = 'o monetary damages for any breach hereof, the claimant shall look,Iolel -4he-interest of the th- owner of the parcel in breach for the recovery of such monetary dan)Ages ____ "' \ \ f e 1 :rs 'r. •4 • E. s sAgreement are for the exclusive 15. No Third P l Tl �t gr benefit of the parties, their heirs c + , • . `,s �, d as w . s, ci rt as otherwise provided herein, and not for the benefit of anon, : •< ...-i's A enks,.be deemed to have conferred any rights, express or implied, upoVan third person. No tandin e} ng herein to the contrary, it is recognized by all parties hereto 'me Investors an.` vt -- 10 (ar" „f c. is presently under contract to purchase Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 - Contract"). For p ..$ s., f this paragraph, the term "Prime" shall mean and refer only to Prime ..� . . and Develo,�- ,\kbj r to a corporation that is the assignee of the interests of Prime Investors . _ D4' p acid under the Prime Contract; provided, however that (i) said assignee shall hayority shareholders as Prime Investors and Developers, Inc. and (ii) Prime shall provide written notice to the owners of the Parcels within ten (10) days of any such an assignment and the verifying shareholder information. In the event of an assignment not complying with the foregoing terms,all of Prime's third-party beneficiary rights referenced hereunder shall immediately cease. Provided that the Prime Contract is in full force and effect and Prime is not in default under the Prime Contract, it is recognized by all parties hereto that Prime is a third party beneficiary of this Agreement and as such, has a vested interest in and to the terms hereof Once this Agreement is executed,no changes,modifications and or alterations to this Agreement shall be permitted unless same shall be in writing and has the written consent of Prime;provided,however,consent of Prime shall not be required under the following conditions: (i) the Prime Contract is no longer in full force or effect or (ii) Prime is in default under the Prime Contract. In any event, the requirement for Prime's consent under this paragraph and Prime's third-party beneficiary rights hereunder shall cease and terminate as of October 31,2004. 16. Partial Invalidity. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall, to any extent, be declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, such term or 13 OR: 3635 PG: 1686 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. WOLF CREEK ESTATES: WOLF CREEK ESTATES,LLC, a Florida limited liability company •' .'/ ' By: Catalina Land Group,Inc. a Florida corporation, v. / _ k its Manager Print Name. ... L. (' a . 1l• ."41 By: Qi9jyt - Print Name: - William L.Hoover,President COtik STATE OF 1p'Q.l' 4 ' SS. COUNTY OF • The foregoing instnun: t • we4 " of 1 , 2004 b William L.Hoover as Presi•-, t. • dpitT o 'orporation, a mans of Wolf Creek Estates, LLC, a Florida ' r -' �• • . • • entities who is(/personally known to me or( )has produc • vidence of identification. 'eet -‘1,c9 (SEAL) 0,6 �' •`,t�! .& . / . 0..I, _ 0'�e' BRANDY A. -� P P *4-1 IC * * MY COMMISSION 600 158976 1 I .� EXPIRES:February 16,2007 e:' �'F ov nd'A Bonded Thin Budget nota/S.Mces (Type or Print) My Commission Expires: 15 OR: 3635 PG: 1688 1,� DNE' RUST 1: .. arii Print N;. _k� %f� v z} Mark L. order,as Trus: under Unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D January 4,1999 /..AIII " --- ' __...011111111176,1'41--;IL ilrigkIllivglitirlr'r / r STATE OF ) COUNTY OF case C ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me,this 3 of AUQ}U4 , 2004 by Mark L. Lindner, as Trustee under that unrecord • Land Tru ... D January 4, 1999 who is( ) personally known to me or ( ) has produced f ,Jas evidd ice of identification. / IPop' (SEAL) „2,1? ��l A �� Name: _ � )i.`A_ _ m. YPe o• Tint) • ` 4 W . t mission .sires: w� � \ �l.(J • r .4 , `,,,Itat ttt,ly PI( , EC 0 . ,,,,—, ...... .,, , . .._".. „.....,_is , ,..., • ,..,.. .. .. ...,,‘... z..—., . _ .... ,..„. .;..0...... .,:,, . .. . . . ,. .. Ar,,..... .. .. r r CIRC i1irtit, •`',% �. ' , :1 : 17 Z L 'd 8862 9E6 6EZ Alb3>IO3/1S 131› woad Wd8E: L VOOZ—EZ-8 • OR: 3635 PG: 1690 BUCKSTONE ESTATES: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: Catalina Land Group,Inc. �� �, 0 a Florida corporation, L its Manager • Print Name: . , ., . c.'t- P1% . . ' Ai ' • By: Print Name: (g_� • 1. Al, William L.Hoover,President STATE OF ct...0r-QA )) `1� - S.COUNTY OF IJ / �N�R (-O� qi i The foregoing instrument •aii.a . owledged before me, s of t/ud' , 2004 by William L. Hoover as Presi.- t • n • �Land Gr.up, Inc. a "orida corpora , the manager of Bucku stone Estates, LLC, a Fl. •da bili i co 1 y, on ,-ha of said company who is ( � personally known to me or ` .-d „„rte. -1r as evidence of identification. I P.Y. _ lair Vol:, 4.iNalAt * my►. ' )D 158078 e (� EXPIRES: , •,2007 (Type or Print) '',,i�n�c� ten,,,: pii!iy .. wsssionExpires: 71-TE C- SAGniDai ss1,ha.V,.s .She:.A..m.Ne.8e.4oe 19 OR: 3635 PG: 1692 Parcel 10: (Owned by:Mark L.Lindner,as Trustee under unrecorded Land Trust U/i'/D January 4, 1999) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPT VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA;THENCE RUN NORTH 89°46'10" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,322.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE RUN NORTH 02°14'20" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, FOR A DISTANCE OF 145.13 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, A 175 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY,AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 02°14'20" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SO I.A. 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34,FOR A DIS ..i r i 'e t; - T TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER e' OF THE SOUTH 1/2 4., ` - • —A. t t SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECI•ION 34;THE "' NORTH 89°47'3:' : ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 2 I SOUTHWEST 1/4 • . . SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, .•R 41 •'I` • 22.04 E TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF E S 1 IF r 5 SO `r S 1/4 •F THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SE 01',�sit% !al a `•S . .13' EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE IF r y1 19' 1 '.O AST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, • • ,l . 8 F a T• • :OINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-W• ,; .' •••''• RB • ; V-' ROAD; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°46' ir .• ST, ALONG THE '� •TH Ris' a IF-WAY LINE OF SAID VANDERBILT `iv ROAD, FOR A =;'. • + 1,322.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEG ii Tt•CONTAINING 15.: ` • ' ORE OR LESS. Less and except that , '-y Collier County in that certain Warranty Deed recorded I c a1( r•. :ook 3573,Page 0780 of the Public Records of Collier County,Flori... Parcel 11: (Owned by:Buckstone Estates,LLC) The West 330 feet of the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. 21 OR: 3635 PG: 1694 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT COST ALLOCATION Parcel Owner's Share of Intersection Improvement Costs #6 L. #4 Inn 11 iiIawmvi(s Land 1 • 3., ' 6% --agate, 1511V AdgNB Land Tom oac4YsLand Wand What O PUD RddanWl4.; Masion Hills _ Shopping Canter #1 #10 9.5% A-2 9.5% Yandw4ltBeach Road A-1 EXHIBIT"C" 23 OR: 3635 PG: 1696 Black Bear-Ridge-Please I Budget Off-sate Improvements Item-North-South Outer Loop Road Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 AC $3,500.00 $7.000.00 2 Silt Fence 2,800 LF $1.50 $4,200.00 3 Fill 8,500 CY 59.00 576,500.00 4 Final Grade 1 1.5 56,500.00 $6,500.00 $ Valley Gutter 2.700 LF $5.50 $14,850.00 6 8'Limerock Base(compacted and primed) 4,800 SY $7.50 $36,000.00 7 12'Stabilized Subgrade 5,750 SY S2.25 512,937.50 8 3'Asphalt 4,800 SY $8.50 540,800.00 9 Signing R pavement markbigs 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00 • 1.0 Sodding 5,800 SY $1.50 58,700.00 11 5'wide Concrete sidewalk 1,500 SY $16.50 $24,750.00 12 4'L.bnerock(under sidewalk) 1,500 SY $4.50 $6,750.00 13 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS $2,500.00 52,500.00 Sub-total M 1`,x,}r `.� 5247987.50 Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements atlty Unit Price Total 1 Turn Lanes Complete(WB Re.ES Ls) $40,000.00 $80,000.00 2 Signa lation .� ( Cl qqf T '000.00 $130,000.00 3 Side Drain Drainage(4 051,DBL run 36') 3YyTY LeL/ ..00 535,000.00 4 Lighting I w 1~'•'ra $25,000.00 /5) SiWotai '.,d.'�.;,_n' `- ,$270,000.00 Item-North-South Outerp d \ Sanitary Sewer - - Queue! Volt? Total 1 8'PVC Force Main(C-900 Clips ,l' 1..1 II $28,000.00 2 Y Plug Valve w/Box f ltI ' 77, 52,76 00 3 Ha Tap Future 16`Force on $5,50100 ' '':, 136,260.00 Item-North-South Outet Water Maio Qaraadty " Unitl Ha Tap Existing 30'Rcinf Con -, , . �� 1 (or alt-j/b and tap new prop 24"' 'aa I LSI, S3. 4liy:000.00 2 12'PVC Water Main(CL 200) 1.400 LF Y .. $35,700.00 3 12'Gate Valve w/Box 2 EA ". 53,000.00 4 Fire Hydrant(Complete Assembly) O� 2 EA s.i'.., $4,800.00 5 PemunmtBacteria1SamplePoint ��'? 7- �3,$i1,.''.00 $1,000.00 6 Temporary Bacterial Sample Point [ e•y' C. ' .. 900.00 $900.00 7 Air Release Valve " -.EA-""- 51,550.00 $3,100.00 Sub-Total ;iii;5a:,.,.. .oat°, $83,500.00 Item-North-South Outer Loop Road- Dralaage Quantity Unit Price Total I Control Structure 1 EA 54,000.00 54,000.00 2 15'RCP 100 LF 523.00 52,300.00 3 18`RCP 350 LF 525.00 $8,750.00 4 24"RCP 1,200 12 $34.00 $40,800.00 5 Valley Gutter Throat Inlet 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000.00 6 Grate Inlet 4 EA $1,700.00 $6,800.00 7 Junction Box 8 EA $1,850.00 $14,100.00 8 15"Flared End Section 1 EA $900.00 5900.00 Sab-Total Orge§gean 590,150.00 OlfSiteTotals - {;c ?":'-:'' 5728497.50 5/14/2004 EXHIBIT"D"-Page 2 of 3 25 OR: 3635 PG: 1698 Q. GRADY MINOR,P.E. 1415 Panther Lane, Suite 232 Naples,Florida 34109 Phone 239-591-6795 Fax 239-591-6732 July 23,2004 RE: Estimate of Engineering, Surveying&Permitting Costs for Pristine Drive Segment One Engineering Design and Permitting of Pristine Drive $35,000 Engineering Design and Permitting of Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Int. Improvements $10,000 Pristine Drive Permitting Costs $1,500 Estimated Costs for Engineering Design and Permitting $46,500 Construction Engineering for Pristine Drive $9,372 Construction Engineering for Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Int./ROW Improvements $4,565 Total Estimated Costs for Constructio �gD1� $13,937 Construction Surveying for Pris:R` ve ��* $18,656 Construction Surveying for V., de •' - -. Rd. Int./R0 • p •vements $6,017 Total Estimated Costs for Co s i cti eying $24,673 ECOPYe nCO CSC 308A51 engrcosts EXHIBIT"E" 27 ASSIGNMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND PERMITS THIS ASSIGNMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND PERMITS (this "Assignment") is made and delivered on this 1 p` '''of December, 2010, by Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (the "Assignor"), to Black Bear Ridge Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability company(the"Assignee"). STATEMENT OF PURPOSE WHEREAS, Assignor has this day transferred its rights title and interest in that certain real property described as: Exhibit"A"attached hereto; and WHEREAS, Assignor desires to transfer to Assignee all of its right, title and interest in and to all construction plans, permits and government entitlements for its benefit including, but not limited to the items set forth on: 'Exhibit"B"attached hereto. WHEREAS: Assignor is the "Developer" in the Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements For Black Bear Ridge recorded on August 30, 2005 in Official Records Book 3879, at Page 1030 and amendments thereto (the "Declaration") and desires to assign its right, title and interest as"Developer" under the Declaration for the purpose of continuing the process of development of the Black Bear Ridge community and the sale of single family residences to third parties. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN and No/100 DOLLARS ($10.00)and other good and valuable consideration,Assignor hereby agrees as follows: 1. Assignor hereby grants, transfers and assigns to Assignee, its successors and assigns, all of Assignor's right, title and interest in, to and under the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements. Notwithstanding the provisions above to the contrary, Assignor shall retain its rights to the escrowed funds on deposit with Collier County pursuant to the Construction, Maintenance and Escrow Agreements for Subdivision Improvements with the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. 2. Assignor warrants and represents to Assignee that: (a) there are no other assignments or conveyances of any of Assignor's rights under the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements to any other person or entity; (b) Assignor has not done any act or failed to do any act which might prevent Assignee from,or limit Assignee in,acting under any of the provisions contained herein; (c) no default exists under the terms of the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements and no prohibition exists in any instrument to which Assignor is a party or by which Assignor is otherwise bound relating to Assignor's right to execute this IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Assignor has signed and sealed this Assignment or has caused this Assignment to be signed and sealed by duly authorized representatives the day and year first above written. WITNESSES: ASSIGNOR: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC,a Florida limited liability company By: a cc.) Jody K.Vanderbilt Q. Grady Minor Its: Co-Manager Print e aedi;75C___ (Corporate Seal) Beth D. Lightner Print Name By: 71„,e Jody K.Vanderbilt Michael D. Moore Its: Co-Manager Print Name "rotivc*-- Beth D. Lightner (Corporate Seal) Print Name STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER / J The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / ''day of December, 2010 by Q. Grady Minor as Co- Manager of Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company on behalf of the company, ho is personally known to me or who has produced (type o identification) as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. NOTE: If a type of identification is not inserted in the blank provided, then the person executing this instrument was personally known to me. If the words in the parenthetical "did not" are not circled, then the person executing this instrument did take an oath. crs- son Img1tiaa N Public `403+�+ My Commission Expires: , waaar EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Lots 2,4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20,21, 23, 28, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43,46, 47,48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64,67, Black Bear Ridge-Phase 1, a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 43, Pages 89 through 92,of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida AND Lots 68, 69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, Black Bear Ridge- Phase 2,a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 47, pages 40 through 42, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. AND Lots 95, 96, 98, 99, Black Bear Ridge - Phase 3, a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 48,pages 71 and 72, of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. 3467972 OR: 3635 PG: 1672 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 09/01/2004 at 10:13AM DWIGHT B. BROCI, CLERK This instrument was prepared RIC FEB 239.50 without an opinion of title and INDEIING 3.00 U after recording return to: Retn: Gregory L.Urbancic,Esq. GOODLETTE COLEMAN IT AL NI Goodlette,Coleman&Johnson,P.A. 4001 TAMIAII TR I f300 4001 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 300 NAPLES FL 34103 Naples,Florida 34103 (239)435-3535 (space above this line for recording data) COST SHARING AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHARED ACCESS ROAD THIS COST SHARING AG tIgRr ` 1 DEVELOP NT OF A SHARED ACCESS ROAD(this"Agreement" . entere• .'t e s 44 of , 2004, by and among the following: (i)Wo Estates,LLC,a • s 'ted liability c pany("Wolf Creek Estates"); (ii) William L. Hoover;as kuste_e of the Fallen Timb.+s L nd Trust dated November 5, 2003 ("Hoover/Fallen Timbers"); (i0) arld--- ,in`dner, ='I'y tee . d unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D January 4, 1999 ("Lindner/Tr;&st f"..„0,- a:-... „ti '•• . • I stee under unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D May 21, 1999 ("Lind serf 2 ( ` : �, ks I ,f'rk es, 1,LC, a Florida limited liability company(`Buckstone Estates'). �' r7) ,:,.. ..., ET) C'\ \WITNESSET ? THA WHEREAS, the parties a own adjacent real . a Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,Collier County,Flo "S. WHEREAS, the parties hereto • •.,l IWA' '' properties which are the subject of this Agreement,with said individual properties being legally described on Exhibit"A"attached hereto and made a part hereof: OWNER: PARCEL: Lindner/Trust 1 Parcel 1 Lindner/Trust 2 Parcel 2 Wolf Creek Estates Parcel 4 Wolf Creek Estates Parcel 5 Wolf Creek Estates Parcel 6 Buckstone Estates Parcel 7 Hoover/Fallen Timbers Parcel 8(west half) Buckstone Estates Parcel 8(east half) Buckstone Estates Parcel 9 Lindner/Trust 1 Parcel 10 Buckstone Estates Parcel 11 1 OR: 3635 PG: 1674 Vanderbilt Beach Road and Inimokalee Road corridors, located between Livingston Road and Collier Boulevard. The Parcels are permitted to have differing land uses but the actual land uses shall be compatible with each other. The Parcels shall be developed using a similar architectural theme along the access roads, quality buffering and screening between the differing land uses, and common site design techniques. All Parcels shall be designed and developed to minimize any negative impacts on abutting and neighboring Parcels. 5. Zoning. Each owner (and the owner's successor, assign, and successor in title) agrees that it shall not object to any rezoning and/or development consistent with the following provisions: (a) Parcel 10 may be rezoned and developed for specialty retail and office land uses. The most westerly 175 feet of Parcel 10 shall be designed and developed only for offices, banks, drug stores, sit-down restaurants, retail shops, and similar intensity commercial uses, and shall not be permitted to have gas stations, convenience stores,fast food restaurants,and stand alone bars or lounges. (b) Parcel 1, Parcel 2, and Parcels 4 through 9, inclusive, may be developed for residential use. Said parcels have been rezoned to the Wolf Creek PUD, Collier County Ordinance No. 03-45 (hereinafter "Wolf Creek PUD") and shall be developed according to the development standards within the Wolf Creek PUD. Any owner of one of esYsy apply for a PUD Amendment to the Wolf Creek PUD through Collier County for fkafArten i rposes without written permission of the remaining owner(s) of the Wolf Creel --property:-Ii) q�+ , d moderate intensity changes to said owner's own parcel or(ii)to incot additional property in e olf Creek PUD, including,without limitation, Parcel 3,Parcel 11, afd/o orin ar el wit S tion 34 owned by Comcast. Any amendment to the Wolf Creek/PUP shier e -=in . the'aOle p- ,.tte4 principal uses and the same or substantially the same devel meii- ..,-•, i • 1 1 , -.f Creek PUD at the time of such amendment. Further, any am • F sh• . b • • •a s' = o _ •1-velipment consultants experienced in Collier County PUD rezo • ''J! . • .. ocess•s. F.,, (c) The owner of •: 1 or Parcel 2 have . gh•at .• e,as to said owner's parcels,to request a rezoning to allow d vOo,ment for residenti. uses •al, hes, private schools, child care facilities,and/or adult living facili (...i (d) The owner of Parcel 1# •. 0, -p..;%tl a as to said owner's parcel, to request a rezoning to allow development for residential-tiVis,private schools, child care facilities, and/or adult living facilities. (e) The owner of Parcel 11 has the right at any time, as to said owner's parcel, to request a rezoning to allow development for residential uses,churches,and/or child care facilities. (f) Any 3-story buildings on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be setback a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet from the North-South Road (as hereinafter defined)between Points "A" through "D" as shown on Exhibit"B"attached hereto and made a part hereof. Additionally, any buildings on Parcel 1 or Parcel 2 shall have tile, metal, or wood roofs, and either a carport or garage for each residential unit. None of the Parcels shall be developed for Affordable Housing, as defined within the Collier County Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance,as amended from time to time. 6. Design,Permitting,and Construction of North-South Access Road. (a) General. The parties intend for a 2-lane north-south access road to be constructed generally in the location shown on Exhibit "B" from Point "A" to Point "F" (the "North-South Road"). All references herein to a particular "Point" shall mean and refer to those labels on Exhibit "B". The 3 OR: 3635 PG: 1676 either (i) all owners agree in writing that the North-South Road should remain private or (ii) the dedication of the North-South Road is not accepted by Collier County. In the event the owners of the Parcels agree to maintain the North-South Road as a private road, the written agreement among the owners shall make a provision for the on-going maintenance and repair of the North-South Road and a means for sharing the costs and expenses of the same. In the event the North-South Road including any of the appurtenances thereto, or any portion thereof) is not accepted by Collier County, the owners shall enter into a written agreement regarding the on-going maintenance and repair thereof. All owners agree to promptly execute such documentation and provide such information as may be requested or required by Collier County to complete the dedication. (f) Maintenance of North-South Road. Any Developer (as hereinafter defined) completing construction of the North-South Road or any segment thereof shall maintain and repair, in keeping with all governmental permits and approvals, such portion of the North-South Road, until such time as the North-South Road is dedicated to (and such dedication is accepted by) Collier County, and Collier County accepts the North-South Road for maintenance, in accordance herewith. The owners shall be obligated to reimburse the Developer (as the case may be) for their pro rata share of the costs and expenses incurred by the Developer in connection with the maintenance and repair of the North-South Road (or portion thereof) for so long as the Developer is obligated to maintain and repair same as provided herein. Each owner's pro rata sharenance and repair cost shall be the same as each owner's share for the initial constructio •fhicc(bIt.. on. Each owner shall deliver its pro rata share of such maintenance and reps' a e Deve o• r . -., five (5) business days of receipt of a bill therefore from the Developef.( the event that the (firth outh Road (including any of the appurtenances thereto, or any portion t reef)-is, not acce•ted bCol er County as a public road and/or for maintenance within one (010 year •w= .e date ort., pletio., of the North-South Road, then the Developer shall no longer be/re .o. 0. : . —•••i . r...::r of the North-South Road and the owners of the Parcels shall agreep.n ro. 1. Or o futjare maintenance, which method may include, without limitati n a- `. . .} .f . 'o I; um t: •ev 1p„ r}ient district pursuant to Section 190, Florida Statutes ("CDD" • •- . • r"er h ' association("MHOA"). In the event a CDD is formed for th C. 11.ose of maintainingd r;.a. `'. ,the North-South Road, the CDD shall have the responsibility fo ` -; arming the mainte , e = 5A: it work and paying the cost and expense of the same. Notwiths••, . w anything to the co �i ,-4., CDD shall only have financial responsibility pertaining to the lana i benefitedd by the CDD. The CDD shall have no financial obligations to or for any p.. . . . `CDD. The CDD shall have the authority to collect for such cost and expense in mai i l , '- i th-South Road through assessments or such Pan g other collection mechanism as may be authorized pursuant to Section 190,Florida Statutes. In the event a MHOA is formed, the MHOA shall have the responsibility for performing the maintenance and repair work and paying the cost and expense of the same. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the MHOA shall only have financial responsibility pertaining to the land which is benefited and burdened by the MHOA. The MHOA shall have no fmancial obligations to or for any parcels not subjected to the MHOA. The MHOA shall have the authority to collect for such cost and expense in maintaining the North-South Road through assessments. (g) Mederos Property (Parcel 3). Parcel 3, owned by Mederos, is not included within the scope of this Agreement. It is agreed that in the event that one or more signatories hereto(individually or collectively) or Prime Investors and Developers, Inc. acquire Parcel 3 prior to construction of Segment 2 of the North-South Road, then said party will cooperate by promptly granting such easements as may be necessary to develop Segment 2 of the North-South Road. The alignment of the North-South Road shall thereafter be adjusted onto Parcel 3, with the width of the road on Parcel 3 being the greater of the following: (i) thirty (30) feet or (ii) one-half of the width of the North-South Road as proposed for the segment of the North-South Road encompassing Parcel 3 and Parcel 8. The conveyance of such an easement by such owner(s)prior to Collier County's approval of the roadway drawings and plans for the 5 OR: 3635 PG: 1678 9. Access Easements/Signature Entry Feature. In order to construct the North-South Road,various road right-of-way easements will be required from the owners of the Parcels. To the extent not previously provided,the owners of the Parcels agree to convey the easements described in this section at no cost to the other owners within twenty(20)days of a receipt of a written request from the Developer (as defined in Section 11 below), and further agree to the conditions and limitations described in this section. (a) Parcel 2/Parcel 8. The owner of Parcel 2 shall provide a non-exclusive 30-foot wide permanent road right-of-way easement along the east 30 feet of Parcel 2 for the benefit of all Parcels. The owner of Parcel 8 shall provide a non-exclusive 30-foot wide permanent road right-of-way easement along the west 30 feet of Parcel 8 for the benefit of all Parcels. The owner of Parcel 9 shall provide a non-exclusive 30-foot wide permanent road right-of-way easement along the west 30 feet of Parcel 9 for the benefit of all Parcels. Where the minimum road width is required by Collier County Transportation Services to be wider than 60 feet, the easement width provided shall be increased the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the North-South Road, with the center of the roadway remaining on the half section line where possible(unless the Developer controls the land on both sides of the roadway, in which case the Developer shall determine in its sole discretion where to locate the centerline of the North-South Road for said portions); provided, however, that where a wider road right-of-way is needed to provide a turn lane into a particular project the additional road right-of-way easement area shall come from the parcel needing such turn lane. R C63 r.. (b) Parcel 1/Parcel 10.7, o .•int"A-2"to '6..4 the owner of Parcel 1 shall provide a non-exclusive 42-foot wide p but oad right-of-way eas- t a' ng the east 42 feet of Parcel 1 and the owner of Parcel 10 shall pro 'de 7- non-exclusive sive 42-iropt wid- •e nent road right-of-way easement along the western 42 feet of P 'cel 0, ,.•r •- benefi of all Farces. From Point`B"to Point "C", the roadway width is intended to ra. ..s r . •• •. =.rp ghtfkof-way to 60-foot road right-of- way. The owner of Parcel 1 shall i • *el • , - 1 e E, •, t• 42ifoot wide permanent road right- of-way easement along the ea tp,,3 `to ,2 ..et • t'. c 11 and •w$� 9f Parcel 10 shall provide a non- exclusive 30-foot to 42-foot d -' en • f-w ' . ` along the western 30 to 42 feet of Parcel 10, each for the ben all Parcels. The ac •.,1 dth ch road right-of-way shall be as determined by Collier County .••rtation Services' :,,Nr. . view of the roadway plans for Segment 1. Where the minimum ..3 'dth is required by . i unty Transportation Services to be wider than contemplated herein,th ,-•t width provid-: • " cel 1 and Parcel 10 shall be increased the minimum amount necessary to acc••' WV'. :14V41 ' ' # 'oad. (c) Purpose of Easements. These easements provided for in this section are for the purpose of providing unrestricted ingress and egress for all of the Parcels and shall also be for the construction of the North-South Road, including all necessary or required utilities, sidewalks, water management facilities,landscaping, and signage. (d) Signature Entry Feature. (i) Permitted Owners/Location. The easements described in subsection 9(b) of this Agreement (or in a separate easement if desired by the owner of Parcel 1 or Parcel 10) shall permit the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, the owner of Parcels 7 through 9, or the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ("Permitted Owners")to construct a signature entry feature (hereinafter"Signature Entry Feature") upon no more than 400 square feet in area and located north of where the North-South Road intersects with Vanderbilt Beach Road. For purposes of this section, the term Permitted Owners shall be deemed to include and mean, as to each individual Permitted Owner, said Permitted Owner's successor, assign, or successor in title. The Signature Entry Feature may be constructed at any time subsequent to the commencement of construction of the North-South Road between Points "A-2"and "C". The Signature Entry Feature may be located, at the sole discretion of the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, in either the 7 OR: 3635 PG: 1680 the sign face(s) for the project on Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive and one-half of the sign face(s) for the project on Parcels 4 through 6,inclusive;and (b)each non-constructing owner not opting out of the shared signage shall notify the Constructing Owner of its project name for the sign(s) within thirty (30) days of notice from the Constructing Owner or the Constructing Owner shall leave the sign face blank for any non-constructing owner not timely notifying the Constructing Owner of its project name; and (c) each of share of the sign face(s) shall be equally visible to both westbound and eastbound motorists traveling along Vanderbilt Beach Road. (vi) Cost. The costs for design, permitting, and construction of the Signature Entry Feature shall be shared as described in this paragraph. In the event the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 elect to participate, the costs shall be divided as follows: one-third of the total costs shall be paid by the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive; one-third by the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2; and one-third by the owners of Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. In the event the owners of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 elect not to participate (and Parcel 10 is not substituted), the costs shall be divided as follows: one-half of the total costs shall be paid by the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive; and one-half by the owners of Parcels 7 through 9,inclusive. WR. COQ�. (vii) Payment. .'� $:• cting Own- ` •1 'vide the non-constructing owners with a detailed billing statement for the �, 1 ction cost within fo iv (45)days after the completion of the initial construction and installati ofigna�re Entry Feature, •• d each of said non-constructing owners shall remit payment to the Conitru e' g (30) cots @f the receipt of such bill. If any such bill(s) is not paid within aid i .- . 0 i'•.% ,. ; + t bf all such invoices together with interest thereon at nine percent .-J . 1 ('/o s . 1 , li- op said non-constructing owner's property,unless and until paid, ii • .• +,gAt! mar-'or. such hen in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida aga e •. -co k• •c _ C: er"`•• ..• d bring legal action against the non-constructing owner for ..n-constructing owns c.ns• c . n costs; and (c) may, at the Constructing Owner's option, f 'e Io - any such lien des ;4.-• a,144aiiin the same manner as a mortgage lien on real property, and interest, • d reasonable attorne• 4.esiof any such action will be added to the amount of any such lien, and s ( verable in -#.the Constructing Owner prevails in any such action. fj E c. L (viii) Maintenance. The Signature Entry Feature shall be maintained and repaired from time to time,which maintenance and repair shall be performed in accordance with all governmental permits and approvals. The Constructing Owner (or its successor or assign) shall be responsible for such maintenance and repair, unless otherwise agreed among the owners participating in the Signature Entry Feature. The costs for any such maintenance or repair to the Signature Entry Feature shall be shared in the same manner described in Section 9(d)(v) above relating to construction costs. Any owner may assign its obligations for payment of such maintenance and repair costs to a property owners' association or condominium association formed with respect to such owner's parcel(s). The Constructing Owner may assign its obligation for maintenance and repair of the Signature Entry Feature to a property owners' association or condominium association formed with respect to the Constructing Owner's parcel(s). (e) Directional Signage. At the request of the owner of Parcels 4 though 6, inclusive, or the owners of Parcels 7 though 9, inclusive, the owner of Parcel 10 shall provide the owners of Parcels 4 through 6 and Parcels 7 through 9 with a non-exclusive sign easement having an area of four(4) square feet for the purpose of erecting and sharing a directional sign along the eastern side of the North-South Road, where the North-South Road intersects with the access road into Parcel 10. The easement shall be in a location such that that the directional sign is easily visible to northbound motorists. 9 OR: 3635 PG: 1682 acknowledge, consent to,join in, and deliver all documents, applications and other papers which may be necessary to make such applications or to obtain the Road Permits and Approvals. (c) Development of Segment 1. Upon completion of the final plans and specifications for Segment 1, and approval of the same by Collier County,the Developer shall furnish such finals plans and specifications for the construction of Segment 1,including sidewalks,accompanying utilities,landscaping, signage (except for the signature entry feature), and other related improvements to the other owners for their review. No sooner than fifteen(15) days after such plans and specifications have been delivered to the other owners, the Developer shall seek bids for the construction and installation of Segment 1 from not less than three (3) qualified, licensed contractors previously experienced in Collier County as road contractors. At the sole option of the Developer, the Developer may also seek up to two (2) bids from qualified, licensed contractors not previously experienced in Collier County. When such bids are solicited by the Developer, the Developer shall notify the other owners and provide them with a copy of the request for bid and a list of the contractors from whom bids are being solicited. When the bids are returned, the Developer shall provide copies of all completed bids to the other owners. In the event the Developer selects any complete bidder other than the lowest complete bidder,the Developer shall provide the other owners with its reason(s) for selecting the applicable bidder, and the other owners shall have the right of approval with regard thereto, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. If any owner fails to notify the Developer in writing of their disapproval of the selected bidder within five (5) business days after - - ; • - thereof from the Developer, such selection shall be deemed to have been apprr b c . Pt" ',twithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the other own /41:01 ave no right • . Y"• • al if the Developer selects the low complete bidder. L.' ' N_--_- No less than thirty-five,(35yda0p to •mmening cont `tion of Segment 1,the Developer shall provide the owners of the o e .•••.fie.• .' •, • •..'f- O'vners") with the following: (i) a cost estimate for the construe on N _, n 1, 411d�g ' ,�' • o tangency (hereinafter"Road Plan"); and (ii) a breakdown of the c si ti •t- o e• •l !e P. •el (aS 1;e' ach of the Parcels, "Individual Construction Cost"). The Not •n. ` , - is ll • . e (35) days from the receipt of said materials from Developer ce said owner's India , nal o fru9'tion Cost into an escrow account with an escrow agent designate 'ily e Developer, whieli,;:s -ovy' It shall be an attorney licensed in the State of Florida. The cons• • funds deposited wi I' row agent shall be available to the Developer through customary cons' q'Ci • •1 •ws. No later r •� -five(45)days after the Developer's receipt of a certificate of completion, .•- II - •• "slider) Ile the construction fund account. Any excess funds shall be returned in a pro rata n J I'elSas-• *i:n the Individual Construction Costs paid. In the event of a shortage of construction funds to cover the costs and expenses of the Developer in constructing Segment 1 (other than due to non-payment by a Non-Constructing Owner), the Non- Constructing Owners shall be responsible for paying their pro rata share of such shortage. Developer shall provide the Non-Constructing Owners with commercially reasonable documentation which evidences the additional costs and expenses incurred by the Developer and the pro rata share of said costs and expenses for each Non-Constructing Owner. Each Non-Constructing Owner shall have twenty-five (25)days to pay its share of such shortage to the Developer. (d) Non-Payment-Segment 1. Except as provided in subsection (e) below, in the event timely payment of the applicable Individual Construction Cost is not received from any Non-Constructing Owner, then (i) the amount of all such Individual Construction Cost together with interest thereon at nine percent per annum(9%) shall constitute a lien on said Non-Constructing Owner's property,unless and until paid; (ii)the Developer may record each such lien in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida against the Non-Constructing Owner's property and bring legal action against the Non-Constructing Owner for the Non-Constructing Owner's construction costs; and (iii)may, at the Developer's option, foreclose any such lien described above in the same manner as a mortgage lien on real property, and interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees of any such action will be added to the amount of any such lien, and shall be 11 OR: 3635 PG: 1684 business days after depositing the same in a letter box or by other means placed within the possession of the United States Postal Service,properly addressed to the party in accordance with the foregoing and with the proper amount of postage affixed thereto. In the event of any notice via facsimile transmission,a hard copy shall be sent via regular mail on the day of such transmission. Any such transmission received after 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time(or Daylight Savings Time,whichever then applicable)shall be deemed to have been given on the next following business day. The addressees and addresses for the purpose of this Section may be changed by any party by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided herein. For the purpose of changing such addresses or addressees only, unless and until such written notice is received, the last addressee and respective address stated herein shall be deemed to continue in effect for all purposes. 13. Governing Law/Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with Florida law (exclusive of choice of law rules). Venue for any action arising hereunder shall lie exclusively in Collier County,Florida. 14. Prevailing Party. The prevailing party in any litigation involving this Agreement shall be entitled to recover from the non-prevailing party all attorneys' fees,paralegal fees and costs incurred in connection with such litigation, at arbitratiis Ta.. 1-or.otherwise, including reasonable attorneys' fees • • and paralegal fees in the enforcement", .\ it- •rnder. The owners of the parcels herein described shall only be liable for •+ • on of this •�' ? - t during their respective periods of ownership, and in the event any,i'acit o- is brought for reco , • monetary damages for any breach hereof, the claimant shall look/olel, o-the-interest of the th- ow er of the parcel in breach for the recovery of such monetary damages 1 - '" a j § 15. No Third P• ,e 1 e5___, .eR - • s tis Agreement are for the exclusive benefit of the parties, their hepr5., > c•es ,,J -=s ;, d asp`'. s, g t as otherwise provided herein, and not for the benefit of any •'•- "on, : ' ...-;s A deemed to have conferred any rights, express or implied, upo \- third person. Notwli . • .in nj ing herein to the contrary, it is recognized by all parties hereto me Investors an s 9 v: o ),4fnc. is presently under contract to purchase Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 Contract"). For p ..sirs,*this paragraph, the term "Prime" shall mean and refer only to Prime • • and Develo!iv ,\1 .4r to a corporation that is the assignee of the interests of Prime Investors • _ D p ss, d under the Prime Contract; provided, � � however that (i) said assignee shall hay---t Ionty shareholders as Prime Investors and Developers, Inc. and (ii) Prime shall provide written notice to the owners of the Parcels within ten (10) days of any such an assignment and the verifying shareholder information. In the event of an assignment not complying with the foregoing terms,all of Prime's third-party beneficiary rights referenced hereunder shall immediately cease. Provided that the Prime Contract is in full force and effect and Prime is not in default under the Prime Contract, it is recognized by all parties hereto that Prime is a third party beneficiary of this Agreement and as such, has a vested interest in and to the terms hereof. Once this Agreement is executed,no changes, modifications and or alterations to this Agreement shall be permitted unless same shall be in writing and has the written consent of Prime;provided,however,consent of Prime shall not be required under the following conditions: (i) the Prime Contract is no longer in full force or effect or (ii) Prime is in default under the Prime Contract. In any event, the requirement for Prime's consent under this paragraph and Prime's third-party beneficiary rights hereunder shall cease and terminate as of October 31,2004. 16. Partial Invalidity. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall, to any extent, be declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, such term or 13 OR: 3635 PG: 1686 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. WOLF CREEK ESTATES: WOLF CREEK ESTATES,LLC, a Florida limited liability company 46 1 .I/ ' By: Catalina Land Group,Inc. a Florida corporation, A _ / , its Manager Print Name. - •► L. C' •-�- 'J ilk i a . e, le:a• a X11 By: 'f.2/ Print Name: +'^ - ...N. a L'_ William L.Hoover,President .,AS,R CO6 STATE OF c`p�.1'" ,�'� ,' ss• COUNTY OF • ) LL The foregoing instrum$nt : c. r:w d . " � - t 1 of , 2004 by William L.Hoover as Presi.eu( • I•to '':a. d o ,.,Inc. o i da,dorporation, e rnana of Wolf Creek Estates, LLC, a Florida '..•r: . .•sili • • •.• •, •n ." • •- ', . entities who is (/personally known to me or( )has produc-•` • vidence of identification. (SEAL) .P C.1� rtli 0 _'. . / /LI. - •a`:;: OR: 3635 PG: 1688 II.,/ D ' RU51'1: higi Print N,. klW !fidr— v-6 Mark L. order,as Tiurs• under Unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D January 4,1999 / 411.0".."--- '.. —..••00/7"e": ii.IV,IIIIIIIIMmirzr STATE OF ) � )u• COUNTY OF C--s-Se./c- ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me,this 3 of AU(i)04 , 2004 by Mark L. Lindner, as Trustee under that unrecord • Land Tru D January 4, 1999 who is( ) personally known to me or ( ) has produced — c24,4TMIII as evid ce of identification. (SEAL) ,al 4 f ! . �� •T _ ate _ e) Name: Vii. / . � ypeo 'rint) ...t p mum ..ires: IAY� a ' ��� . 11! - . ,_, ••., - , ... . . •.-,....„. + ,...., , , ...., / ._•. • .. t-IyT , 17 Z l 'd 8862 986 6E A1b3NO3/1S 131)1 WOdd Wd8E: l V00Z—EZ—8 OR: 3635 PG: 1690 BUCKSTONE ESTATES: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC, a Florida limited liability company IIIA By: Catalina Land Group,Inc. �, 0 a Florida corporation, -. li L. its Manager o Print Name: . . ., • c,'C- PIS . ' =tea ft.*ii ' • By: — , , , Print Name: rte[ i. ;Mt t. William L.Hoover,President STATE OF CL.-(3r-2-.X i)A ) )ss. COUNTY OF 0�\.\\ r R The foregoing instrumed before me, s of ,) 2004 by William L. Hoover as Presand Group, Inc. a • orida corpora the manager of Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Fli i co P y, on ,-ha of said company who is ( 4� personally known to me or -d�.r�.`-rr y as evidence of identification. 'i'�` yr i (SEAL) `,-- iip A , Q . 1µr,,uk� , - ;r :4 7T•\'Y-.' ��:4 **. * My WM` ." DD 158976 e' : EXPIRES: ;,2007 c.J (Type or Print) '+,,°me Bonded'+�.nd'' /if!' i 0 r+ssionExpires: Viravrl0at Mom\lioo�McmmJ<kYSwim Ammar-NahSc i.doc 19 011. 3635 PG: 1692 Parcel 10: (Owned by:Mark L.Lindner,as Trustee under unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D January 4, 1999) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPT VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA;THENCE RUN NORTH 89°46'10" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,322.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE RUN NORTH 02°14'20" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, FOR A DISTANCE OF 145.13 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, A 175 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 02°14'20" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SO '.I. 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34,FOR A DIS ..,....,f e "- T TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 1/2 a ' T l.0.,- •- ••1:1%,,.. I SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34;THE r4'''i.1 NORTH 89°47' ' ALONG THE NORTH LINE ' OF THE SOUTH 2 * I SOUTHWEST 1/4 I SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, SR • ID •7` - I L.22.04 ' EE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ESn -7 , AF r I so r6 S 1/4 9 F THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SE O" �r.1 a •- '13' ."' EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE IF I S • - +' ,9' / ` ','� -O I •ST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, i IS ! I ..C; 1' T• • :OINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-W• i s� .e ". ' z t' : V' ROAD; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°46' tr •ST, ALONG THE 'e�' RI tate F-WAY LINE OF SAID VANDERBILTa ROAD, FOR A s 1,322.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEG ' : ':,(a CONTAINING 15.: • ORE OR LESS. Less and except that -1 . .t -• •. -..i • Collier County in that certain Warranty Deed recorded • Eala:•s . :ook 3573,Page 0780 of the Public Records of Collier County,Flori•a. Parcel 11: (Owned by:Buckstone Estates,LLC) The West 330 feet of the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. 21 OR: 3635 PG: 1694 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT COST ALLOCATION Parcel Owner's Share of Intersection Improvement Costs f% 12% Y,i�r . ��� ,.. .,, 44 '11 #74L\--------„.7.,tcrd > 0 s% .411 k iv.„,,,,„,,„ wc( olirry , D Ton pay's Land Island Walt -- PUD Residentiali 4 r k > C 12% .('1l Mission/ds #1 = #10 9.5% ,4-2 9.5% Vend hoot Besot Road A-1 EXHIBIT"C" 23 OR: 3635 PG: 1696 Black Bear_Ridec-Phase I Budget Off-ante Improvements Item-North-South Outer Loop Road Quantity Unit Price Total I Clearing and Grubbing 2 AC $3,500.00 57,000.00 2 Silt Fence 2,800 LF 51.50 54,200.00 3 Fill 8,500 CY $9.00 576,500.00 4 Final Grade I LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00 5 Valley Gutter 2,700 LF $5.50 514,850.00 6 8'Limerock Base(compacted and primed) 4,800 SY $7.50 536,000.00 7 12'Stabilized Subgrade 5,750 SY 52.25 512,937.50 8 3"Asphalt 4,800 SY I8.50 $40,800.00 9 Signing&pavement markings I LS 56.500.00 56,500.00 10 Sodding 5,800 SY 51.50 58,700.00 11 5'Wide ConcreteSidewafc 7,500 5Y SI6.50 $24,750.00 12 4'Lunetock(under sidewalk) 1,500 SY $4.50 S6,750.00 13 Maintenance of Traffic I LS 52,500.00 52,500.00 Sub-totalA' i % 5247,987.50 Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements gtity Unit Price Total I Tum Lanes Complete(WB Rt,EB Lt) ..- S40,000.00 580,000.00 2 Sigoaliation Ci )'T .,000.00 $130,000.00 3 Side Drain Drainage(4 DBI,DBL run 36') w‘,...,8„,11.-t1".1' `LTJ 1.00 535,000.00 4 Lightingt es ,r $25,000.00 CSt .fatal +axb-;;M;.";<C.:,' �Sne,000.00 S Item-North-South Outer p ' d "1 Sanitary Sew f . Qrantf UnitP Tata' I 8'PVC Force Main(C-900 Class •r r r t• $28,000.00 2 8'Plug Valve wI Box f inIA.7 52,764.00 3 Hot Tap Future 16"Force '�on _ 55,50100 t.zrs x ,.; .R= .00 •Ir t Item-North-South Oute -.MIL a Water Main QuantityUnit rite '1 Hot Tap Existing 30'Rcinf Con 1Q $.3. 1 (or alt jlb and tap new prop 24' 1 LS' '11•1C).000.00 2 12'PVC Water Main(CL 200) 1.400 LFY 1'•40 a 5,700.00 3 12'Gate Valve w/Box 2 EA �` $3,000.00 4 Fire Hydrant(Complete Assembly) 0 1, 2 EA v..t'. $4,800.00 5 Permanent Bacterial Sample Point `\,C ..' .00 $1,000.00 6 Temporary Bacterial Sample PointC.I .4900.00 5900.00 7 Air Release Valve $1,550.00 33,100.00 Sub-Total „: ,. .wwwfx $83,500.00 Item-North-South Outer Loop Road- Draiaaie Quantity Unit Price Total I Control Structure 1 EA 54,000.00 54,000.00 2 15"RCP 100 LF $23.00 52,300.00 3 I3"RCP 350 LF 525.00 $8,750.00 4 24'RCP 1,200 LF 534.00 $40,800.00 5 Valley Getter Throat Inlet 6 EA $2,000.00 512,000.00 6 Grate Inlet 4 EA $1,700.00 56,800.00 7 Junction Box 8 EA $1,850.00 514,800.00 8 15'Flared End Section 1 EA $900.00 $900.00 Sub-Total 4'-:;<4"s.:: �' `x ",`:.`.a ll 596,350.00 OIFSiteTotale OffiNeffain $728,097.50 5/14/2004 EXHIBIT"D"-Page 2 of 3 25 OR: 3635 PG: 1698 Q. GRADY MINOR,P.E. 1415 Panther Lane, Suite 232 Naples,Florida 34109 Phone 239-591-6795 Fax 239-591-6732 July 23,2004 RE: Estimate of Engineering, Surveying&Permitting Costs for Pristine Drive Segment One Engineering Design and Permitting of Pristine Drive $35,000 Engineering Design and Permitting of Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Int. Improvements $10,000 Pristine Drive Permitting Costs $1,500 Estimated Costs for Engineering Design and Permitting $46,500 Construction Engineering for Pristine Drive $9,372 Construction Engineering for Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Int./ROW Improvements $4,565 Total Estimated Costs for Constructio L winner-00o $13,937 ti � Construction Surveying for Pris:i 6,0' ve .� $18,656 Construction Surveying for V.. de •' e - . Rd. Int./RO s p vements $6,017 Total Estimated Costs for Co s I cti t .. . eying $24,673 (7), CIIIPY E� \''(C'- -: \\,,,,, ,__ `C, � E GI , RD 308A51 cngrcosts EXHIBIT"F' 27 GrecoSherry From: R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:52 AM To: Steve Bracci Cc: SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: Re:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: image001 jpg; image002.png All, If the County had approved the prior owner's conceptual plan, I would have said "approved" and referenced an SDP#. That prior plan included the existing conceptual preserve area that would now be modified by my client's insubstantial change application. The point is that whether the conceptual Preserve is changed or not makes no difference about how many homes can fit on the land, regardless of the existing or modified preserve area. Opponents claim otherwise.They are simply wrong. I do have one correction from the project's engineer.The number of dwelling units on the prior owner's plan was 215. The 254 is the number is the number of remaining unbuilt units approved in the PUD. Thank You, R Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 Telephone: 239-659-4942 direct 239-261-9300 main Facsimile: 239-261-0884 RBAnderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:RBAnderson@napleslaw.com> www.napleslaw.com<http://www.napleslaw.com> On Jul 7, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com»wrote: Dear Board—this is in response to Mr.Anderson's email below. I believe you should ask Mr. Anderson to clarify what he means when he states: "The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong." The impression left by Mr.Anderson is that the prior 254 site plan was approved by the county, and that the new presently pending 215 unit site plan now reduces the approved site plan. Mr. Anderson should clarify whether the county ever approved a 254 site plan, or whether he is instead just referencing a concept plan on a sheet of paper that was never approved. Sincerely, 1 The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build,whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law <image001.jpg> Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com> www.napleslaw.com<http://www.napleslaw.com> This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us (collect) at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination,forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent:Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net<mailto:burtsaunders@colliergov.net>; pennytaylor@colliergov.net<mailto:pennytaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net<mailto:WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net»; andysolis@colliergov.net<mailto:andysolis@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net<mailto:DonnaFiala@colliergov.net»; R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com» Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change 3 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Penny Taylor COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-PL20170000756,to quitclaim and release the County's interest in the Park tract of Edgewild, as recorded in Plat Book 13, Pages 44-45 of the public records of Collier County, Florida.The subject property is located just west of Livingston Road, approximately one half mile south of Immokalee Road, in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. F NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings (Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls Exp arte Items - Commissioner Penny Taylor COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A.4 This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Arthrex Boulevard, Application Number PL20170001077. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings I 1Correspondence ❑e-mails ®Calls Meetings and telephone conversations and conversations with staff Ex parte Items - Commissioner Penny Taylor COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A.5 This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes Phase 1A, Application Number PL20170001378. NI NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE I (Meetings I (Correspondence I le-mails I (Calls Ex parte Items - Commissioner Andy Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Board of Zoning Appeals 8.A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Judith S. Palay and 92 other property owners within the Cocohatchee Bay Neighborhood Communities,filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the administrative approval of building separations, building widths, building dwelling units, and building heights in the Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA-PL20160002242 for Kalea Bay aka Kinsale Condominium Phases Il-VI. The subject property is located at the northwest and northeast corners of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South and Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170002165] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls Meetings: Rupnow and Palay, 1/20/17; Rupnow and Palay 2/24/17; Strain 3/24/27; Strain 5/5/17; Corace meeting 6/22/17; Halas meeting 7/7/17 Correspondence: Brookes letter 2/7/17; Woodward letter 4/3/17; Rupnow packet 4/20/17; Caron letter 7/3/17 Emails: numerous (and how!) emails from constituents and other members of the public Calls: Schiffer call 4/3/17 GoodnerAngela Subject: phone call - Frank Halas, Kalea Bay; ending up being in person at the office Location: phone call Start: Fri 7/7/2017 1:30 PM End: Fri 7/7/2017 1:45 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndy Required Attendees: Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com) Call him 1 GoodnerAngela Subject: Richard Corace, Kalea Bay Location: Kalea Bay Start: Thu 6/22/2017 11:30 AM End: Thu 6/22/2017 12:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndy Required Attendees: SolisAndy Categories: Offsite Event 1 GoodnerAngela Subject: Mark Strain Location: BCC Conference Room, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34112 Start: Fri 5/5/2017 1:30 PM End: Fri 5/5/2017 2:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndy Required Attendees: Mark P. Strain (markstrain@colliergov.net); Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com) Categories: Commission Chambers Kalea Bay review 1 Excerpts in order of occurrence, from CCPC hearings over 3 days starting in December of 2007 and completing in February 2008 on the Cocohatchee Settlement Agreement. December 13, 2007 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, no -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the concern I have is that in fairness of what neighbors would expect if they did read the PUD document and look at the setbacks in it, obviously you had a little footnote that could get you out of it, they would expect the one-half the building height. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, unless they -- and if read the PUD document, the document says if there's a common architectural theme and the buildings are skewed, the buildings could be closer together. That's a common occurrence in a lot of the PUD documents that are approved. I believe even Land Development Code talks about a common architectural theme and being able to put buildings closer together. And we've had this discussion with other projects, Pelican Bay as an example, where on a lot of the high-rise pads because of a common architectural theme buildings are close together, other than the one-half the sum of the building height, because they've met the requirements of the common architectural theme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe to resolve this, Brad, the common architectural theme language is prevalent in many of the older PUD's. This one has had it in. We weren't part of the approval of that process. Do you see something in these buildings that is inconsistent with the application of common architectural theme as found in the PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, the common -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what our objective here is today is to show where the settlement agreement may be inconsistent with the PUD. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the common architectural theme is an irrelevant part of this conversation. Yes, that's easy to obtain. And I'm sure that anybody building them out would do that. Page 72 December 13, 2007 The concern I have is just take the silhouette of these buildings, you've moved them to within like 120 feet from each other. So essentially we're creating a wall of buildings down the side of Vanderbilt. The height of the buildings is 200 and -- much higher than 200, because you have accessory structures, and you're public pushing them in closer and closer. Certainly closer than the chart, is what I think somebody would expect. And it also says that they can be. And I guess Susan, you're the one that would determine the word can, so can these be put closer? MS. ISTENES: If they meet the requirements of the PUD, which is common architectural theme and skewed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't staff rely upon professionals as well to opine on that -- MS. ISTENES: Well, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and have it? I think a professional -- do you have any letters to that effect? MS. ISTENES: Actually, we do. I don't know that you have them. MR. SCHMITT: Do you have a copy of that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've seen it, Susan, yes. MR. SCHMITT: We have a letter from an architect. I think the issue here, Brad, is that the PUD language is clear from the standpoint the language just says where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can -- and that's the word, can -- be administratively reduced. That is demonstrated to us. The issue is unless we can verify it doesn't meet those requirements, I have e no option but to approve it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my -- MR. SCHMITT: It's just the wording that was in the PUD. I can't change the wording. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then why do we have a Page 73 December 13, 2007 development standard chart that gives setbacks that you know you're never going to use? I mean, isn't -- the concern I have is that the subtlety of that footnote versus the power of a development chart. I mean, I don't think that's fair. From a planning standpoint I see no advantage of twisting these buildings a little bit and sliding them closer together. I mean, what is the reward planning wise? MR. SCHMITT: I don't argue that. But I can't put myself back in the late Nineties when this PUD was approved and others with similar language that -- it is approved. They have a right to ask for that under this criteria and it's not subjective in nature. I guess if the board wants to make that decision, then the board can -- I have to defer to the board, if they choose not to exercise the word can. And I'm going to turn to the county attorney, because we had this discussion even yesterday -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, let me interrupt. Before we go to the county attorney, we cannot hear today -- we're not here to debate and rewrite the PUD. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're here to interpret the settlement agreement as if it -- to see if it meets the PUD. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you're not wrong in some of the comments you're making, but the PUD is a 2000 year document. I don't know how we can go back and change the PUD unless we do it through the settlement agreement. But the settlement agreement isn't addressing that kind of a change in as far as interpretation of the architectural theme. It's not saying eliminate that or enforce that, ifs simply saying here are the setbacks. If you disagree that the setbacks listed in the settlement agreement are inconsistent with the PUD, I think then that's a recommendation that you can suggest. I haven't seen where you've Page 74 December 13, 2007 proven that yet, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not proving it. What I'm saying is in the settlement agreement they're discussing the fact that they can reduce the setbacks to 100 feet. So the setbacks are certainly an issue of the settlement agreement. Why are they in it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm sorry, I didn't see that. MR. YOVANOVICH: The reason we put that language in, if I can, is we wanted to -- and I think staff agrees with this -- eliminate administrative or administrator's discretion and have a clear, measurable standard as to the closest possible distance between these structures. That's all we were trying to do is create certainty through the settlement agreement. And I think staff agrees that it's easier for them to go look at this standard and say okay, if there's a modification in the future to the SDP, these buildings can be in this locating. Instead of going back to the provision of they've got to be common architectural theme and skewed, and do we argue over if there's a one degree or a half a degree, does that meet the skewed definition? We just wanted to take those arguments out, come up with what we thought was a more measurable standard. I think staff agrees it's a more measurable standard, and it's easier to implement than the current standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, and here's what you put in there: The minimum separation for the habitable portion of the buildings shall be one-half the sum of the height of the habitable portion of the buildings, not to exceed 100 feet. There's no site plan that ever had this thing 200 feet separation. So why do you even tease us again with the one-half the sum of the height? There's no intention to ever provide that. The concern I also have is that the original PUD where they were parallel doesn't meet the intent of the PUD. So obviously somebody -- and it's best shown in the October 12th PMS document. It shows where somebody had a concern with the fact that whoa, wait a minute, Page 75 December 13, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, because the garage still extends out past the edges of the building -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well beyond the habitable area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- why I wanted to have it clear in my mind. Okay, and that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would be my thought on it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- fine. If that's what the presumption is, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't think it has a huge effect on the overall scope. Jeff, can you comment on that aspect of the relationship of the settlement agreement to the PUD and what we are supposed to be doing in regards to that today? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, the Board directed that you look at the settlement agreement and make sure that it comports with the PUD and with the board's prior directions and the LDC. Not to change it. I'm not entirely sure we need this extra language in here. From what I'm hearing from planning commission is that the PUD controls. And whatever the PUD language is the PUD language. This additional change I believe comes from that side of the table. It may change what the PUD really means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly what I think our goal was here today and our charge was, was to point those things out. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and Ms. Caron, did you have something you wanted to say? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Mr. Yovanovich, when your client met with the neighborhood, were distances between those buildings shown on that plan that you presented to them? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm being told yes. I wasn't at the meeting. I'm being told yes. Page 78 December 13, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Could I see that plan? Because the original drawings that we got up until a week ago never showed any distances between buildings. So we could have had that information apparently months ago, but we didn't get it? Your planning commission didn't get it. But you're telling me that the neighborhood recognized that there would be 100 feet or 150 feet between buildings, because it was on the plan that they all looked at? Okay, so here's the real situation. Go ahead and repeat what was just said to you. MR. YOVANOVICH: That -- what I was just told was that there was a scale on the plans, but a physical line between the structures was not on the plans. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it did not say on anything that the citizens looked at here's building one and here's building two and the distance between those buildings is 150 feet, or whatever it might be. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: It did not say that. MR. YOVANOVICH: It did not say that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. So they really, in just glancing at plans in a neighborhood information meeting, would have had no reason or no understanding of what those little skewed plans that they were handed actually were meaning. So they couldn't have questioned that at the time. I think that the language being put in here is an attempt on staffs part to sort of be off the hook when these buildings finally go up and everybody realizes that they have this massive wall of buildings with only 100 or 150 foot separation between them. And when the complaints start coming in they don't want to have to deal with it. Now, in addition there is the question in our LDC about compatibility and light and air and view corridors. And I want to hear from staff on the acceptability of moving those buildings closer Page 79 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's everybody but us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Its present forum or elected -- MR. KLATZKOW: Or appointed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or appointed officials. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They forgot us on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're usually so harmless, Brad. Okay, so on paragraph 15, the second line after the word elected, it will be elected or appointed officials. Anything else on Page 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 8? Anybody have any concerns on Page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 9? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just want to talk about -- I'm sorry, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 8. It's stating in here that the SDP's are incorporated in the document. That's not what was stated in item two. So Jeff, is that a concern? I mean you say the settlement documents consist of and then we're adding something that's -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's always been -- and maybe this is just me. It's always been my idea to give the board a package with a bow which would include the settlement agreement, the amended PUD and the finalized site development plans so that they were all approved at once. Now, the site development plans would be contingent upon approval of the board. But once the board signed off on it, they were ready to go. That's been my concept of this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we're not -- in other words, Page 13 February 25, 2008 within your bow there could be the illusion that we o could we kill as inco •orated in this documen tYou'd still have your-glow, only there won t •e t e impression t at we helped you tie it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about referenced in this document? Because see, Brad, I think the problem with this sentence is if you don't reference to what you're saying they need federal permits for, the potential claim then, the lack of permitting for anything in the future might be there. So if we use reference instead of incorporated, would that work? MR. KLATZKOW: That would be fine, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: That works. Is that okay, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else on Page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nine -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nineteen has the same, elected or approved officials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's figure out where we're going to put that then. We would put that right after the same former -- present/former appointed or elected -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Elected or appointed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Elected or appointed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's on Page 9. Last page of the settlement agreement is Page 10. Are there any changes or questions about Page 10 before we go into the amended PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 14 January 11, 2008 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think that paragraph 10 really relates more -- other than -- the first sentence or two have to do with the height of the buildings, which are pretty much a footnote to the bald eagle management plan. The second part of it, the underlined portion of it has to do with building separations. So this particular paragraph has less to do with the bald eagle management plan than it does with the separation of these buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree with you. But at the last meeting, and I have my notes and the county attorney's notes that said we want to discuss the bald eagle management plan at this point. And for some reason -- if we don't want to do that now, we want to do that later, that's okay with me. I was trying to follow the pattern set forth previously. So we can go -- we'll just continue on with paragraph 10, if everybody would prefer to just look at the height issue on this one. I'm not even sure this is where the height issue came up originally. I think it came up in paragraph 14, which is habitable. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, no, I'm looking at the last one we have, and it was in 10. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the height. And I brought up the concern on height, concern on measuring from habitable. I did go back, research even the building codes. Habitable is defined exactly as the applicant claimed. It's livable area. Occupyable (sic) area, which is what I was actually describing at the last hearing, habitable is certainly a subset of it. But it would be places of work, places of entertainment and stuff. So my concerns that I had last meeting are totally gone, and I apologize for any confusion I'm sure I caused. Page 45 January 11, 2008 separation of structures. And it said there had to be a common architectural theme and the buildings need to be skewed and basically not parallel. So the commission saw this. We provided an exhibit when we did the neighborhood meetings. Yet if you look at the exhibit, you could see that the structures were not 200 feet apart, we were only going about -- did we have a line on there that says the distance between buildings? No. But if you looked at the scale that was on that drawing, you would see that these buildings were not 200 feet apart. So I don't think we ever sold this as they were going to be 200 feet apart, else we wouldn't have had the common architectural language in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the common architectural language, let's make that simple. You're building the exact identical building. We could discuss whether that's good or bad. I personally wonder. So it's obviously common, they're twins. Everything, everybody is going to look alike, according to your SDP. MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, they're quintuplets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they're quintuplets. So we don't have to worry about them being a common architectural theme, they're identical. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've covered that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the concern is though -- but I think there's a clause in there that I know you're hanging on, and that is that if you do skew the buildings or twist them, then you can move -- the buildings can have less than the dimensions shown. Now, I think what that means from a planner, and Susan's our chief planner, that you have a spacing required. Yes, you can twist them a little bit, and if that does cause that dimension to be less, that's not a problem. I don't think it means no setbacks or no separation once you twist them. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're not trying for no separation. Page 50 January 11, 2008 We're just trying to implement the provision in the code -- I'm sorry, the PUD, that already says if you do these things we can minimize, reduce the building separation. I provided some language in an e-mail that says it has to be a minimum of 100 feet for the habitable tower portion of the structure, the parking garages will still meet their one-half the sum of the building height. We don't think under this site plan, frankly, that it's going to look like a wall of buildings. We think that it's going to look very nice. I mean, frankly, they're angled all the way up. The only issue that you were raising is there were two buildings that arguably were not skewed and they were parallel. So we wanted to make it clear, we didn't want to get into an argument down the road, you know, parallel means one thing in geometry. And I think I told you the last time I was here I wasn't very good at geometry. But once you skew it one degree, you're no longer parallel. And we just wanted to say, listen, you're going to end up with buildings that are a minimum 100 feet apart on the towers. We think from a view corridor coming down Vanderbilt Road with the landscaping buffer that we provided you, this is going to look fine, it's going to look nice, it implements the existing PUD, and it wasn't a change to the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But back to what you said earlier, Richard, I think much like -- remember when I wanted you to look at this drawing, you wanted us to look at the other drawing, you can't see the building masses on those other drawings? I think most people would not notice the distance. Obviously I had to take out a scale to see what the distance was on the submitted PUD to find out what they are. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here in a little bit. So if we could get to some point you feel we can break, Page 51 January 11, 2008 Brad -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he walked away, Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I know that. No, I'm just suggesting if you at some point -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can take a break any time you want. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I was just answering my client's question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Anyway, my concern is that we put a chart in the table, that's really what prevails. And the exhibit, you know, there's a lot of caveats on it stating that it's subject to change and all the other things. So I think anybody relying on that data would be relying on the table. I think what the table means, and we can get some testimony from staff, that there's a massing expected. In this case everybody expected a square of open space between these buildings that, yes, if you rotated them or did something like that, of course the corners might swing in less to that dimension. So in other words, if it's 190, 180 feet once you rotate them -- let me wait till the side bar is over. M.R. YOVANOVICH: You know, we could debate this point probably all day. The PUD says what the PUD says. There's a footnote that specifically allows for the buildings to get closer together if you meet the criteria of the PUD. We're not asking for any changes of the PUD document related to building separation. What we simply are trying to do is make it less ambiguous for both staff and us and for the general public to understand what the separation will be. And what we're saying is it will be a minimum separation for that livable portion of the building of 100 feet. I wasn't prepared and didn't think we were going to debate the original PUD document. It was adopted, we're implementing it. We're trying to make it clear. Had they not wanted -- if there had been an Page 52 January 11, 2008 intent that you would never be able to reduce the building separation, there wouldn't have been that footnote. And candidly, there wouldn't be a provision in the Land Development Code itself that allows for common architectural theme to result in the reduction of building separation from the minimum standards. It would have said thou shalt never be closer than 200 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here. And we'll come back at 10:15. Mr. Vigliotti and Ms. Caron both have questions at some point in this issue. So when we get back, Brad can finish with his. We'll get into Mr. Vigliotti's and Ms. Caron and we'll go from there. 10: 15 we'll return. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, we'll resume the meeting where we had left off. And Mr. Schiffer was working on some questions concerning the last two sentences on -- starts on Page 6 and on Page 7 of the settlement agreement. After he finishes, Mr. Vigliotti was next, and then Ms. Caron. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess, Rich, just to go back. One thing, you mentioned that in the LDC there's a section of code that says if you have a common architectural theme -- and again, this county, one of its problem is it makes everything look the same, but we'll assume that's good, that's a given -- that if you rotate it you can reduce the separation between buildings. Is that -- I don't think that's in the LDC. There is something similar to that about clustering but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and that's under -- the common architectural theme talks about clustering. You go through a conditional use process. We went through a public hearing PUD process, so there was a public hearing process that occurs. And I don't believe -- and I could be wrong, I don't believe there Page 53 January 11, 2008 is any requirement for either skewing or rotating the buildings to meet the definition of common architectural theme for clustering. So instead of what you see on the visualizer where you have the buildings angled away from Vanderbilt Road, you could probably line them all up on Vanderbilt Road and really create the wall that you're fearful we'll be creating. Now, I think you have to look at all of this together. We have landscape requirements that we've provided for you. And this is actually the sight line study that shows you, as you're driving down or walking down Vanderbilt Drive, you're not going to see the buildings. So if you're not going to see the buildings, what's the impact on this necessary space between the buildings? Now, from a distance, I don't care where you are, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet, if you're a half a mile away, the buildings are going to look close together, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet. So I think if you look at what we're doing, we are meeting the requirements in the existing PUD; we are further away from Vanderbilt Drive than the minimum required; we have met the skewing and the common architectural theme. We're not asking to change the PUD, we're just asking to make it clear that the minimum distance has to be 100 feet. Because frankly, probably under the PUD we can get even closer, which I believe was one of your concerns when we talked the last time. I believe you asked me, Rich, can't you guys theoretically get within a couple of feet of each building. And we've said no. And we've answered that by saying the towers have got to at least be 100 feet from each other. So we thought we had addressed a lot of the concerns while staying consistent with the existing adopted PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess maybe, Mark, if it would be okay, let me have Susan come down. Because the way that clause really reads is if that if you meet certain conditions it can be Page 54 January 11, 2008 administratively reviewed. Again, you know my opinion is that the intent of something like that from a planning concept, not from just looking at words and playing Philadelphia lawyer, from a planning concept, that means that if a building rotates, that would tend to close dimensions, and the dimensions would swing in. And if you do that, you won't be penalized because of the fact that you've skewed the building. But let me ask Susan, because she's the one that would be making that judgment. Or Ross might be. Richard, let Ross -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, Pm sorry. I thought he was going to sit over there. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, zoning and land development review. Susan's asked me to address this issue for you. The way we understand the PUD is -- well, the basic question is, is the reduction in setbacks or separation of structures limited by the PUD document? And the answer is no, the separation is unlimited. I can't see any grounds in there for intent to reduce it a certain amount, or it would have been specified. So the question I ask myself is does the applicant have the right to do what he did? And the answer was yes. There simply£is nothing that limits the amount of reduction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Ross, you think what that meant -- here's what I think it meant. I think it meant that if you have two buildings, you have a separation, in this case a square, that if those buildings rotate, they close in on each other a little bit. And that's what that means, that essentially the scale of the project -- remember, I'm talking purely in the planning concept of buildings and mass -- that the scale of the project stays the same but the dimensions do close slightly when you rotate them. So when you're telling me that clause meant -- and this was what was given to the public as a development standard, that if you slightly skew your buildings, which is what they've done, you have no side Page 55 January 11, 2008 setback requirement anymore? MR. GOCHENAUR: Basically that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Really? MR. GOCHENAUR: Correct. Now, as far as the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From a planning concept you really feel -- MR. GOCHENAUR: As far as the intent. When the PUD was approved, I don't think we're going to find anything that explained the intent as far as a possible reduction in the amount or the distance. I think it was unlimited. It's unlimited here. I don't see where we have the right to tell the applicant that there's a limit to which he can reduce that separation. It's simply not stated in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the point. And this will be the last time. I don't want to be redundant. But I think as planners, not as reading little words and, you know, reading between lines, is that when you describe through the table the separation of these buildings to have essentially a square of space between them, that if you rotate those buildings a little bit, that square can open or close a little bit. You're saying that they essentially tricked us then by giving us a table, giving us a setback, knowing all the time that they're never going hit that description, they're never going to hit that dimension. MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, I'm not suggesting anyone was tricked. But I am saying that the board approved the setbacks as they appear in this table. And that reading these, without full knowledge of the intent or any real intimate knowledge of the PUD rezone itself, I have to say that this is the way I feel constrained to apply it. And I don't think Susan disagrees with that, which is why she asked me to explain this to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So as the one who made the administrative decision that if a building in this case was slightly skewed, that eliminated the requirement for building separation? Page 56 January 11, 2008 MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, that's my understanding of this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At our last meeting we discussed this particular point in depth. I believe almost everybody weighed in at different points, we spent a lot of time on it. What I had said is I'm not happy about it, I don't like it, but it's in the PUD. We're not here to change the PUD, nor can we. I just think it's something we have to live with and move on. And I believe it was the consensus of most of us, as I said, that it is the way it and we have to live with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a comment and then I've got a comment. Ms. Caron, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and it will be a comment at this point -- well, actually, I'll ask a question first to the county attorney. Do you agree that staff has no authority to make a judgment on the separation of these buildings? MR. KLATZKOW: I think --just for visually, because I'm more of a visual person, if your buildings were like this and you required 200 feet, okay, and then they said you can make it slightly askew and thereby build them like this, I think that's an absurd interpretation. I think what the -- I think the way it reads is that there's discretion here -- and that includes this board as well because you're making recommendations to the board here, that if they're going to make this slightly skewed, that yes, they can reduce this, that's appropriate. The question is how much of a reduction is appropriate. And that's my view on that. Now, the planning director disagrees with that, and that's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you for that. Because Page 57 January 11, 2008 I think this is a critically important discussion to be having because this is not going to affect just this project. This will affect projects coming down the road. And if we suddenly decide that we have no authority -- no planning authority to decide whether 250 -- what in reality will be 251-foot plus buildings could essentially be five feet apart, the absurdity of that judgment is just beyond me. If this board thinks that 100 feet, when it should be 200 feet, is the correct way to go, then you'll make that decision. But I agree with Mr. Schiffer, that we're going to end up with essentially a wall of buildings 100 -- you know, barely 100 feet apart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had a comment I wanted to make. And I saw this sentence telling us that the applicant had agreed that the buildings would never be less than 100 feet apart. I don't know why the applicant wanted to do that, because basically the PUD stands on itself and they probably have a very good case on that footnote if they wanted to make one, regardless. So I'm wondering, to get off this point, because we're only discussing it because of these two sentences in the PUD that now with staffs testimony here today and the clarifications that have come out of discussion today by staff, why do you need these two sentences? You still got the PUD that dominates, and we're off the discussion and we go on to the rest of the paragraphs. So I'm asking the applicant, originally I saw a version of this document with those two sentences struck, because apparently someone at one time felt the PUD stood on its own. I understand your position in trying to voluntarily minimize the distance in which they could be put at, but it looks like that's causing a lot more controversy than the effort may have been worth. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will tell you, we think the benefit of that sentence is both to us and to the county so when there's personnel changes over time, there always are, or different people sitting in your seats, people could interpret the document differently. And we would Page 58 January 11, 2008 like that certainty because, candidly, we need to know that this site development plan will be approved, or something similar to it if changes happen will be approved in the future and not be subject to a debate over words in the future. And we thought -- I think staff would prefer to have the clarification so we all know it won't be less than 100 feet. We would like that in the document to provide certainty to us so -- and reasonable minds can disagree about what things mean, and we're just trying to make sure that this is clear that we have certainty in the future. And that's why we've asked to keep that in. I know it's an uncomfortable conversation we're having, but that's why it's in, and we think that it's beneficial to both sides to have that language in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the language only states a minimum. To get to that minimum, you still need to bring in the common architectural theme issue. So the language doesn't clear up any of the debate about that issue. It simply says you have a minimum of 100 feet that you can get to but you still got to fall back on what the debate has been to get there. So I'm not sure why the sentence helps you, but if you want to leave it in, then we will go forward. I just suggested, since I had seen it struck in the prior version, the first version that was sent to this committee back last year didn't have -- had that struck through as being omitted. Then it was put back in when you all realized it was coming to us, for some reason. But that's fme. It seemed simpler without it. We're on paragraph 10 -- Brad, did you have another question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My comment was, based on Ross's testimony, just take it out. Because we're ultimately going to vote on this thing. I certainly could -- I don't know how we're going to vote, if we vote by number, line item veto kind of thing maybe. But if we vote on this thing as a whole, I would never support that. Page 59 January 11, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're voting on it. I think we're simply making recommendations and we can all, on each recommendation, say we support it or don't support it. We're here to tell -- I thought we were here to describe to the BCC what the settlement agreement means in interpretation of the PUD that they formerly had, the differences. If some of us see this as a different interpretation than what the PUD meant, then that could be our recommendation. Others of us may not see that as a different interpretation. You're focusing on your dislike of a footnote in the PUD, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's a different interpretation. That's all I'm getting at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Make it clear, I'm focusing on the geometry of the construction of this project. Let me ask Ross one quick question before we jump away. Ross, this is in for SDP, the setbacks are shown, I saw some correspondence where you didn't accept the setbacks because the buildings were parallel but then they slightly skewed them and therefore triggering that footnote. And you've given us your interpretation of that. Have you signed off on the setbacks of this SDP already? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. They're revising the setbacks not for the high-rises but principally for the clubhouse and the single-family homes. For the high-rises, I've accepted the resubmittal that revised the setbacks and skewed the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially Richard is concerned about the future generations, you've signed it off, it's a done deal. This clause doesn't mean anything in this agreement anyway, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Let's keep in mind that this is almost like a package. The settlement agreement and the site development plan are Page 60 January 11, 2008 all going to the board at the same time. And, you know, defining what the setback is in the settlement agreement doesn't -- I don't know really where it gets us anyway, since the site development plan is going to have the setbacks anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the applicant wants to leave it in. We can recommend to take the two sentences out and that can be done with it, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The concern is not about the present. But if we go in the future and we determine that we need to make a modification to the site development plan and we move the buildings a foot one way or the other, we don't want to get into a debate again on this issue. We want it to be understood and clear that we can go ahead and reduce the setbacks between the buildings. We don't want -- we don't want to be stuck with, Mr. Yovanovich, you moved it a foot. We think this new group doesn't agree that you're allowed to put buildings closer together. That's why this provision is in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Then I'm going to want some clarity. Because my understanding was that we were going to have a final site development plan and that's how this development was going to get built. I'm hearing now that well, maybe we're going to make changes after all this is over to that site development plan. So that what ultimately gets built is not what ultimately is going to go before this board. And I don't -- it's okay by me if it's okay with this board, but that's what we're saying here right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that this settlement agreement is based upon the approval of the three SDPs. Once they're approved, they're done. Are you going to tell us that there's going to be more -- well, they'd be outside the settlement agreement then, would they not? MR. YOVANOVICH: They would be outside the settlement agreement. What we're looking for is clarification of what does the Page 61 January 11, 2008 PUD document mean in this settlement agreement. So if there is a change, people will say, Mr. Yovanovich, you're right, the buildings can be, as long as they meet the common architectural theme. The buildings are not parallel, they are skewed, you can be closer together but not less than 100 feet apart on the residential tower and the parking garages, some of the building height. So when we go in the future, we know we're allowed to do that. No maze, no language of, you know, what is this distance of, you know, what is -- how much skewing do you need to do to meet the intent of this. We want to know that if there is a change, that's how the PUD document will be interpreted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I myself, I thought the PUD language stood on its own. Your bringing it into this document is causing concerns with this panel. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm listening to the public discussion about it and there are people who are less certain that it stands on its own and it's clear. And that's why we're trying to make it clear through the settlement agreement, so in the future we don't have a changing of minds as to what is clear in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments on paragraph 10? If not, we have to figure out how to resolve this paragraph and what kind of recommendation as far as the language goes we need to provide to the county attorney to include in the next draft that is produced. Any comments from the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, what I would prefer we do is remove this language, because -- and let it be something that the administrative staff take care of. If Richard is concerned about a future planner viewing it the way I would view it -- and remember, I have a degree in architecture and planning -- then that's a good concern. Page 62 January 11, 2008 But the point is I would never want it to look like this board endorsed this kind of interpretation of the setback. I don't think it's right, and I think it should just be struck. It should not be a problem. Quick, get your administrative stuff in there. And Ross is today's professional and he says that you can do what you want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tend to agree with you in the sense that I don't think the PUD needs any more clarification. I think you can manage yourself under the PUD. That's what you accepted. I don't see the need for these two sentences. I'd just as soon they were gone as well. I just don't see the need for them. I understand your concern, Richard, but you're a capable attorney and I'm sure you could argue whatever rights you had aren't going to go away whether these two sentences are there or not. Any other comments from anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to say one more thing. Is that when we get PUDs we get a development standard table, which everybody says that's the genetic code of the project. And then we get a drawing that everybody says can be fluctuated quite a bit. The standard really gave everybody the impression of the separation of these buildings. To do what we're doing now I think is a big mistake, the way it's being interpreted. Enough said. I mean, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, when I read a development standards table, and you know I read them all because every single meeting I harp on the footnotes. I read this one. I wasn't here when that one was approved, that was way before my time. But had it been here, I would have known what it meant, I would have known exactly what it meant and what the footnotes mean, because I realize they're critical, they're that important to what this committee approves. So I don't know if when this went through people didn't know what they mean or didn't read it. I sure would have known what it Page 63 January 11, 2008 meant and would have read it, so I'm assuming the other bodies on this board would have done the same thing. So I'm not in your camp in that regard, but I do believe that these two sentences are not needed, and my recommendation would be that they just be struck and not included as part of this settlement agreement. Is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I really agree with that. Do you need a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we need a motion, Mr. Klatzkow, or just consensus? MR. KLATZKOW: At the end I'm going to ask you to go through this so we have certainty as to what these changes are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let's just get a consensus. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, don't you feel that the Board of County Commissioners wanted our opinion on such a thing on whether it's a reasonable distance between structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wanted our opinion on how the settlement agreement differed than the PUD, how it changed the effect of the PUD. That's what they specifically said on the tape that we reviewed. If they wanted our opinion on all the aspects of this project, we could do that. But we would need about a month at the rate we're going and every day of the week to review it. I don't think they wanted that, nor would they be able to read that if we sent it to them. So we need to stick to the focus. Look at the settlement agreement, look at the issues in the settlement agreement and describe to the BCC how they vary from the PUD language that's already been approved or suggest remedies to that effect. And that's what I think we need to be focusing on. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But shouldn't we see what the consensus is as far as this board is concerned relative to the separation somewhere along the line, whether it's now or done at the end of the Page 64 January 11, 2008 hearings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think this is a popularity vote on the PUD's application. If it is, then that's -- we can do that, but I'm not going to take part in it because I don't think that was part of the direction this board was given. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I wasn't talking about a popularity report, I was talking about something that's whether ifs good planning or bad planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that differs too amongst the people and the experience they have on this board -- or experience in that field. And I'm not sure everybody has the expertise to opine on what's good and bad planning from a perspective we'd be looking at this. Because we certainly haven't gone in, analyzed the PUD in regards to the presentations at the time and weighed in on the way this is utilized in other parts of either this county or the parts of Florida. So those are areas I don't see where this board had the --needs to get into. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Frankly, I prefer the language out. The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going ask for a -- I'm going to go down the line as far as recommending removal of this language. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself, yes. Page 65 January 11, 2008 Is that pretty much, Rich, about a year ago we discussed this? MR. YOVANOVICH: Joe, the intent of this paragraph is whatever the federal agency says to us about how we deal with the bald eagle will apply to this project. If it means we have to relocate a building, which means we have to amend our SDP, that's what we have to do. It also means that I don't have to go through a public hearing process to amend the bald eagle management plan to implement what the federal agencies tell us to do. We don't, frankly, want to be where we are today again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So if the Army Corps tells you or U.S. Fish & Wildlife tells you that you've got to move your building, you don't have to come before a public hearing? So the plan that we've been looking at, and they tell you you have to move it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm still subject to the SDP rules -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- you don't have to come through a public hearing process? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. But I'm still subject to the PUD requirements for that change to the SDP. And I'm still subject to the SDP rules. Just like, for instance, the way we talked about earlier is if we come in and amend the SDP and we move the building one foot, one building one foot and we have to amend our SDP, I'm not coming back to the planning commission. Same concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the Fish & Wildlife or any of those agencies come back with a change to the bald eagle management plan that requires a change to the PUD, then you have to come back through a public process. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. If they moved us into a nonresidential area, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the same as anybody else. MR. SCHMITT: Same as anybody else. An SDP, if it's Page 97 January 11, 2008 administerial in nature, it's a change to the SDP. As long as it's changed and meets the requirements as defined in the development standards, it would be -- well, depends. A substantial or an insubstantial change to an SDP. Those are not public hearings, those are administrative in nature. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, substantial is. MR. SCHMITT: No, ma'am, substantial only means -- and there's always confusion on this. Substantial only means than it is a more intense process. It may involve water management and other elements. An insubstantial change is just a truncated review, meaning it goes to a few reviewers, because it is very specific in nature. It is not a shortchanging of the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off on paragraph 13. And part of that paragraph was the bald eagle management plan. I think we've gone through the bald eagle management plan, we've got a series of changes. I want to make sure staff is aware of the changes we suggested to the bald eagle management plan. Was someone taking notes or cross-outs or strike-throughs as we were going along? Okay, so you know what language we struck. You know what things we suggested adding, like the circles at 330 and 660 feet. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're all set on that issue. So we can get a draft of that plan back with a draft of Mr. Klatzkow's rewrite of the settlement agreement after today's meeting to make sure it checks out in our final reading of this whole mess. MR. KLATZKOW: If we just get a reading back of what --just for the record so Richard understands and everybody understands, we need a written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want it right now? MR. KLATZKOW: Either now or at the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's fresh in our minds, let's finish it Page 98 January 11, 2008 agreement is any deviations that they request from the SDP. Other than that, isn't it all staffs job to do it? Is it our job to check staff? You know what I'm afraid the issue we're going to get back on to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But I thought where we were going with the SDPs was purely a supplemental information for us to understand the terms of the settlement agreement, how they're being interpreted and incorporated into the SDP. For example, your issue on habitable height. That's the perfect example of why we needed to see the SDPs. I don't think any of us are water management engineers or people like that that need -- or piping engineers that need to get into the details of the connections and all that. But I think that we would look at the setbacks in the SDP, and are they what we believe the settlement agreement intended. And if they didn't intend it or it's different than the PUD would have allowed, we need to point that out. But that's the extent of it. I didn't see us getting into every little nut and bolt of the connections and detailed portions of the SDP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My thought is that since we removed the deviation of setbacks, that's a good issue to look at, then it's purely up to staff to review the SDP. Other than that, we're second-guessing staff in their review of the SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with you. I have very few comments in the SDP. However, in going through the SDP, I did find that there were no development standards for accessory structures or for, like, the clubhouse. In the golf course section of this PUD, you have a clubhouse height limitation of-- you have a height limitation of 20 or 25 feet. Their clubhouse far exceeds that. So I couldn't understand where they got the standard from. And then I found out there really wasn't a Page 136 January 11, 2008 standard. And I think they're proposing standards in some of the paperwork we've got in front of us here. So that's why I would suggest we move through those five pages of graphics first, and then we can get in -- and once we analyze those, it may eliminate all the questions we may have on the SDP. And those, for everybody's reference, are the one that starts with the setbacks from Vanderbilt Beach Drive. They have attached to them two tables that are in the SDPs as well. And then there's a graphic showing a landscaped buffer, and of course the berm doesn't have a height on it, that's a problem. And a couple more details and then the second floor plan of the building. So the first one of those plans is an exhibit showing the setbacks in relationship to Vanderbilt Beach Road, and actually between the towers, both the towers and the garages. Same type of setbacks that are on the SDP. So I'd certainly like to open up the discussion, starting with that document. Does anybody have any -- now that we've spent some time on the settlement agreement, we better understand how it applies. Do we have any problems, questions or concerns with the settlement agreement's application versus the PUD application on that site plan that was provided to us? It's not the tabled one now, it's just the graphic one to begin with. Anybody have any issues? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, what are we going to do, are we going to approve these and say yes, these are acceptable dimensions for this building? Because obviously you know where I'm going to be. I thought booting the side setback back to staff kept us from endorsing those setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. In fact, I don't think we were asked to approve the SDP. We were asked to approve or recommend conditions -- we were asked to provide an analysis of the settlement agreement. Because the settlement agreement referred to the SDPs, we Page 137 January 11, 2008 need to look at the SDPs to make sure that everything is there. It didn't say we have to like it or we have to agree with it, it simply has to be consistent with what is in the intent of the settlement agreement. And if it isn't,we need to tell the board that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Obviously the side setbacks are measured improperly. The distance between buildings, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do you think that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I don't think that the distance is one-half the sum of the heights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the PUD -- in two sections the PUD allows for common architectural theme, which eliminates that criteria as testified to by staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't agree with that. That's your impression. This is my impression. And when I went to school -- I have a planning degree, I'm an architect and planner. From my interpretation this does not meet the separation distance between buildings. We went through it already and staff tram ed me so I don't know why we're persisting here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN:: Well, It you guys don't want to review the SDP, I don't need to review it, because I came through my review only needing a couple of things. I'll be glad to fall back on the issues I had problems with, and that was the fact there were no development standards for the clubhouse and the cabanas. And if that's -- go ahead, Mr. -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe, and I hope you got the e-mail that I forwarded from Jay. Actually, I sent it to Jeff and I think Jeff sent it to you. I sent it Friday, January 4th to Jeff. And I'm pretty sure he forwarded it to you. It was a suggestion that we essentially incorporate the -- for all structures other than the high-rises, we incorporate the R-2 development standards into the PUD document for all of the other Page 138 January 11, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thursday, the 14th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thursday, the 14th, yep. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 8:00 to noon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8:30 to noon, right. MR. SCHMITT: I need for the applicant to understand that that is a fairly -- though it seems like a long time, it's a short time. We're going to need their focused cooperation in getting documents to us, the county attorney finishing its portion as well. You're going to want the documents on the 14th, we're going to have to get them to you in the mail out minimum by the 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a meeting date. What I would suggest is the only thing you send us now is the draft version of the settlement agreement, as we've discussed, and a strike-through of the PUD. We don't need anymore SDP plans. But we will need an acknowledgment from staff that the SDP plans that they have by the date of our next meeting are consistent with the agreements that we have in front of us. MR. SCHMITT: All right. Well, then I need to turn to the applicant, to Jay and his team. Today's the 11th. I've got to take everything that we've discussed -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm going to be doing that. MR. SCHMITT: Well, they've got to take it and apply it now to the SDPs as well and get a resubmittal to us. I'm going to need that -- Pm going to need a resubmittal and we need to do a review. So you're going to want some kind of a testament, I guess, or us attesting to the fact that the SDPs are in compliance as well. I am looking to the applicant here. They've got time frames to meet and I've got to have at least -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, we have March 3rd open if you want more time. But it's either the 14th of February, the 25th of February, March 3rd, or you could even go to March 18th. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought what we were trying to do was Page 144 January 11, 2008 make sure we have a development standards document that we can all live with, and then staff will then apply that development standards document to whatever our submittal is, with the goal that our submittal, our revised SDPs consistent with this new development standards document will ultimately go to the Board of County Commissioners at the same time. I don't know why we would have to have the SDPs resubmitted, re-reviewed before we come before you all, because you're just setting the development standards. You're not going to be actually reviewing the SDPs for consistency with those development standards, are you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think we need to. And I don't know if-- does this board feel the desire to get into those plans? I don't think we need to. Well, then we don't need to worry about the SDP. MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. But the commitment -- and I want to make sure Rich understands that when we bring this to the board, that's with your recommendations, your basically recommendation of approval, I assume, by that point of the settlement agreement, the PUD. And with that I want to be able to tell the board as well that the SDPs are in compliance and ready to be approved, subject to the approval and signature of the settlement agreement. So that's what we would bring to the board. Is that not correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought we were bringing them both at the same time. MR. SCHMITT: That they both come at the same time. Staff would approve -- MR. KLATZKOW: I just want this over. MR. SCHMITT: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, the settlement agreement, PUD, SDPs, all at once for the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the board. But this panel can finish up with the settlement agreement and the PUD at the next meeting we Page 145 January 11, 2008 have. And then the staff reviews everything subject to those. Mr. Schmitt goes forward and says yes, the SDPs are consistent with what the planning commission recommended, here's where we're at. And then if the board changes it, so be it, but at least we've gotten that far with it. MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. Then that basically gives the applicant more time for a submittal -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And we could be done in about a week, Joe. We didn't want to put you guys in a position to have to get it done in a week. MR. SCHMITT: That gives me time, based on -- subject to your approval of the 14th, it gives the staff the time to review and have a reviewed settlement agreement, a strike-through and underlined PUD document that is commensurate with the settlement agreement. And then we will sometime, whenever that date may be, and that's up to the county attorney and us with the manager to define a date to bring this to the board. But when we bring it to the board we will then affirm to the board that the SDPs are in compliance as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a comment and Mr. Murray had a comment. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to ask you to repeat what you said about setting the development standards. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we're going to essentially do is we're going to revise the PUD document. It's going to become a development standards document which will show heights or whatever setbacks, whatever we just talked about changing, the R-2 standards becoming the standards for everything but the high-rises, All of that is going to be in one document. You're going to say yes, this is what we recommend the development standards document should be to go to the Board of County Commissioners. And then we have the burden of submitting an SDP that's consistent with those development standards that are Page 146 January 11, 2008 going to be in that document. We'll get that to staff in short order. But to put them in a position, make sure that the development standards document is done accurately so you can review that and review all the documentations to make sure it's consistent with that I think might be putting staff in a hard place to get that done by the 14th and run the risk of errors. And nobody wants that. We're all trying to make sure that this is done accurately, the SDPs are consistent with the development standards document, and the board can have all that in front of them at the same time to say yes on the settlement agreement, yes on the SDP. If they say yes to the settlement agreement, the SDPs get issued the next day, they sign the document and 15 days later we write you a check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's going to do the settlement agreement? MR. KLATZKOW: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who's going to do the PUD? MR. KLATZKOW: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When can you have those done by? MR. KLATZKOW: The more time you give me, the better. I can have it done in a week, but it just means setting aside everything else. So the more time, the better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Jeff, we're trying to work to your schedule. Is the 14th too -- MR. KLATZKOW: I can have it done by February 14th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you'd have to have it done in advance of that because you'd have to go over it first with the applicant and then with us. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I can have it -- you can be looking at this February 14th with plenty of time to review it. But, you know, if you give me more time, that would be fine, too. MR. SCHMITT: We would hand it out at the meeting February Page 147 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we -- I mean, I put it there because I thought you'd be the one to ask for it if I didn't, so -- I mean, you know, six is more there for your benefit, Brad, because you were the one that made the issue of it. And I was trying to be more courteous to you since it's the district you live in, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. But I mean, first of all, the outcome isn't what I would like, but the concept was is they were trying to bring in something into the settlement that would lessen the separation between buildings, and I thought we kind of left that �� ����� ��� � ��� didn't want the look. The PUD says what it says, F� as CCPC to get involved in endorsing something that I didn't think was correct. So do we have to discuss this at all? Is it something that was in the original agreement that the commissioners know about, or is it something that they brought in and we took out? In other words, will they be missing this if it's not there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And again, I -- Brad, I was trying to be as thorough as possible to get everybody's strongest feelings on record. If it's not needed, if-- and you were the one primarily questioning this, you and Donna. If you guys -- I don't need it there. Again, I was trying to make sure I got as much of everything everybody wanted to say on here. We could leave it with the first two sentences and note that the Planning Commission decided to let the language of the PUD remain as the interpretive language for this particular issue and leave it at that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, we could have a shorter thing, I'll agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, thank you. And I think I understand Brad's comments, because there will be some discussion, I submit, with regard to the issue of angled or skewed buildings. But I think this works to the benefit of the elucidation that comes from it. Page 81 February 25, 2008 The issues that we faced and qualified and that with all of that, nevertheless it ends up with the fact that it can be administratively dealt with. And we've edited it pretty well. I think it gives the commissioners an opportunity to realize the extent of what we went into this. So I would be an advocate for keeping it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, and then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm definitely an advocate for keeping the discussion in there. I believe that it absolutely defies credulity on the part of both staff and the petitioner that that asterisk in the development standards table means that 251-foot buildings can essentially be built with zero lot lines. (At which time, Commissioner Adelstein enters the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER CARON: In fact, during the 2000 BCC hearings, Ron Nino, who was presenting at the time stated for the record that this project -- and he went into great detail about this to be visual for the entire room so that those people who just didn't understand feet and inches could also have a visual idea of what was being discussed. -4 evelopment standards as Pelican Bay relative to spacing a` . The development standards are exactly the same, he said, one-half of Neither the petitioner nor his agent bothered to correct this fact, so the board accepted it at face value. I believe, as the County Attorney said -- stated on the record, that both staff and this commission have every right to exercise good planning judgment when it comes to this matter. And I'd submit, based on my last statement, original intent as well. And I think we should exercise that right in any recommendation to the board. I am absolutely an advocate. I think if anything, I would make this six a stronger statement than what's there. But at any rate, I am Page 82 February 25, 2008 definitely in favor of keeping it in. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, if I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: --just briefly make a statement. The Pelican Bay PUD has provisions for the reduction of building separation when there is a common architectural theme. So Mr. Nino was correct when he made that statement. And if you were to read the Pelican Bay PUD, you would see that for common architectural theme you don't have to meet the one-half the sum of the building height. So I think to put in context what Mr. Nino said, that was true, there was a footnote to allow this to happen. I don't think it's fair to characterize those conversations that the developer or whatever staff said means that there was not the possibility for there to be a reduction in building separation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well — COMMISSIONER CARON: And again, what we discussed was that absolutely, Brad went into great detail about what skewing those buildings would do and how it would change the setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, I think. Brad, then we'll go to you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, I endorse that 100 percent. I think we should put a statement in there, and I would agree that -- I would even favor a stronger one. But we were told we could not go only so far as far as changing what had already been in there. But I certainly think expressing our opinion as to what we feel is in order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is to Rich. I don't know how familiar -- at the original hearing, was it pointed out that the drawings people were looking at, that the separations in the table were not met? MR. YOVANOVICH: I wasn't there. Page 83 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use the microphone. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I was not involved in this project during the original hearings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there anybody in the room who was there? MR. YOVANOVICH: The original 2000 PUD adoption hearing. Mr. Griffin was there. MR. GRIFFIN: There were no buildings. MR. YOVANOVICH: But there were no buildings that I know of, or what I'm being told. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The PUD in the back of the original -- I mean, the master plan in the back of the original PUD I think was one of those typical blank PUD's that just shows "R". COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then when did the first plan that showed buildings, when was that developed? For the Bald Eagle Plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: The SDP's -- is it about three years ago? I've lost track of how many years ago we submitted the SDP's. Four years ago? When those SDP's were drafted, they were consistent with the Bald Eagle Management Plan. That's when five buildings were identified with the building separations that you see in front of you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get a consensus on whether or not we want to leave this as written or if we want to make a change to it. I'll start with Mr. Kolflat. You want to leave it in? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you want to see it altered, or do you care if it's left in or not? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I wanted to pull this away from the Planning Commission. I did not want them to deal with Page 84 February 25, 2008 dealing with what this footnote meant and what the other plans meant. If we do leave it in, then I certainly would like to be involved in the writing of it and would certainly be a lot stricter than the one you have in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, I don't -- a lot stricter. You want to get into the debate on the meaning of the intent in the PUD. That wasn't an issue that was presented in the settlement agreement. I simply was trying to express your concerns in this. If that isn't going to work, we shouldn't be opening up a new subject that is not addressed in the settlement agreement. If this goes to that, that was never the intent. I was trying to be -- honestly, I was simply trying to make this discussion simpler by putting some reference in here that we did discuss it at length, that we had different thoughts on it, so that if the BCC wanted to consider it and it would be highlighted to them, they could further do so. If you all think this is an opening to get into items that were not in the settlement agreement, I think that's a mistake and I think we need to back it back out then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just thought an unbiased discussion is all I was trying to get across. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff, let me ask you this: Where this became a discussion for us is when there was a version of the settlement agreement that included reducing this dimension to 100 feet. Is that something that was in -- what the commissioners were looking at originally? When they handed it off to us, was that in there? MR. KLATZKOW: I thought that was new. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It doesn't matter. Page 85 February 25, 2008 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the reason this went to you all in the first place is we added that language to the settlement agreement to clarify building separation. And when that language was added, that's when it was sent back to you. That language is out now. So I would assume had we not put that language in in the first place, we never would have found our way to the Planning Commission. Because that was the language that was added that basically sent us here. So you guys have recommended to this point take that language out, leave whatever the PUD language is. Staff says that our SDP's are consistent with the PUD. And I believe, although you may disagree with that, Mr. Schiffer, you've said that's a staff decision, let's move on with life. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I didn't get an answer to my question. Was that wording looking for a reduction in the separation between buildings in the version that the commissioners had that they sent to us? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. That wording was in that version -- MR. GRIFFIN: It was taken out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And see, Brad, if you read the dissertation here, it leads up to the conclusion that we said drop the language, take it out, leave the interpretation up to the staff and the PUD. My discussion here was not to take sides, but simply to tell the BCC our reasoning for requesting that that sentence be taken out or that reference be taken out of the settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If the answer is yes, before the commissioners' eyes that was in there before it came to us, then we have to respond to it. If it wasn't, if it's something that you put in after that and then we took out and they're not aware of it, then we don't have to respond to it, in my mind. Page 86 February 25, 2008 So if we know for sure, Jeff-- do we know? Is there a way we could see for sure? MR. KLATZKOW: Rich was in this process before I came here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then we have to answer it. We have to write a paragraph that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, they saw that language, and then we did delete it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then we've got to talk about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have a transcript of Commissioner Coyle's remarks at the November 27th meeting in which he put forward the charge that we should do at this Planning Commission. And basically there were five points that I could summarize that are in there. One is are there any disadvantages to the county contained within the settlement agreement. Two, what are the potential impacts of the settlement agreement on our Land Development Code and its interpretation. Three, what are the provisions in the settlement agreement likely to do both positive and/or negative. Four, a look at larger issues. Seems to me that those guidelines and those directions offer us the opportunity to make an expression of how we feel about these building heights, even though it wasn't out of the previous PUD. And I would certainly endorse the comments made so far that we should address that issue, since we were asked to comment on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let's do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember seeing Commissioner Coyle make his statement as well, and remember his -- what locked into my mind was that his intent was to find out Page 87 February 25, 2008 everything we could about everything we could so that they would have a better vetted document to work with and be a better conclusion. Now, as to expressing our opinions, the problem I perceive is that we may very well all have different opinions and it's difficult to express that unless we want to do a point counterpoint. My view is that this was a summary, this language that was prepared was a summary that we went through and the conclusion that was reached, whether we particularly liked it or not. And I would be just as happy leaving it the way it is. If we could find another way to make it stronger, we might be doing another two or four hours. Because I think this is what we spent most of our time on -- well, perhaps not most -- but an awful lot of time on the last time and never was able to reach a good conclusion because of the -- we were stopped by the simple statement where buildings with a common architectural theme, da, da, da, da. So that's my statement. I don't know whether it supports everybody, but that's my view. I think we ought to stay with what we have here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The intent of this statement for all of you again was simply to try to express to the BCC how we got to the last sentence which says basically remove the reference to the separation from the settlement agreement. And that was the conclusion I thought we had all come to at that point. Having that in mind, number six, does the majority of this commission feel it needs to be changed or left as it is? And I would like to propose that in a straw vote. I mean, I don't know how you call -- I guess you could call it whatever you want. Those of us that can accept it the way it is written, signify by raising your hand and saying aye. MR. MURRAY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) Page 88 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three four. Those who wish to see it changed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we discuss what we would change, Mark? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. But the point is that I think we want to keep a dissertation leading to a conclusion here. Not get in -- not necessarily get into the merits of whether or not the PUD's language is correct or incorrect. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd be happy with it if-- in the lower paragraph on the first page you get into a discussion about the accessory buildings. I would like you to strike that. That has nothing to do with the issue. So where it starts in addition and go down to, you know, the accessory structures are less than two stories in height, just kill all that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that goes down to the word however? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go down to the word do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hold on a second. Oh, okay, so from the word in addition -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the word do. You're suggesting we strike those two sentences. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that basically is a discussion about accessory structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Page 89 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't have a problem with that. Again, it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Keep them focused on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a concern with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER VICLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then that last thing is the alternate redesign of the site plan, that's nothing to do with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now where are you talking about? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Turn the page on the last this. I would recommend striking that. That's something they can discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it doesn't matter to me. Anybody have any problem striking that? COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought that was a good comment to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did, too. I thought it helped explain why we made our decision, Brad, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't remember us ever discussing that, but did we? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, well, maybe we didn't then. If we didn't want to -- it doesn't matter to me whether it's in. It's up to you guys. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Leave it in there, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One in. Donna, in or out? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it should be in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there is other alternates to the designof the site, that's what's not fair about it. Better alternates that would not cause moving the towers towards the street. Page 90 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's -- that's probably the one thing -- paragraph that Brad should write, if there are other alternatives to doing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, they could do the spacing. I mean, but anyway, in other words, I don't think we should be designing the site plan for them alternately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think it -- this wasn't an attempt to do that. It was just to suggest a solution if the BCC wanted one, that's all, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Rich I'm sure will point it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care if it's in or out. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd leave it in. COMMISSIONERMURRAY: I want it in. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I do, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat's -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're going to want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you've got everybody but yourself wanting -- I mean, I personally don't care, so you got -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine, leave it in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The commissioners want more information, not less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'll strike the two sentences on the reference in the accessory facilities, and then I'll move on to paragraph -- then paragraph seven. This is the one about submerged lands. That's been taken out. Paragraph eight talks about the single-family homes and how we had to add standards for those. And paragraph nine is the standards needed to -- because accessory structures had to be addressed. And that's the major bullet points that I had thought were -- Page 91 February 25, 2008 needed to be highlighted, in addition to all the strike-throughs and changes we're going to be recommending to the BCC. Is everybody sufficiently comfortable with that at this point? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, if I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- keeping it in context with what Mr. Schiffer said. The board never saw the submerged land paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They didn't? MR. YOVANOVICH: That became an issue after the BCC delivery to you all, if my memory's correct. That came up after it was sent to you all and someone raised the issue of doing the recalculation. So I don't know if you want to put -- that may just confuse the issue on that paragraph, since it was never raised to the BCC through a version of the settlement agreement that they've seen. I just bring that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: It wasn't raised in the settlement agreement itself until -- and I don't know who it was asked that it be put there. However, there was long discussion about it at the BCC during that public hearing. So I think the commissioners are well aware of it and I think leaving it in there is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Just when they go to compare, what did they originally see versus the strike-through and underlined you deliver. They're going to say why is this struck through on the later version when we never saw it on the earlier version. That's the only reason I bring that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet you could explain it away too, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd be happy to. I'll try to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have something you wanted to follow up on? Page 92 GoodnerAngela Subject: Mark Strain Location: Collier County Commission Office, 3299 Tamiami Trail E, Bldg F#303 Start: Fri 3/24/2017 11:00 AM End: Fri 3/24/2017 11:30 AM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndrew Required Attendees: Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com) Diane Rupnow's email, Cocohatchee Bay PUD 1 GoodnerAngela Subject: Judy Pellay and Diane Rupnow Location: County Commission Office, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples Start: Fri 2/24/2017 1:00 PM End: Fri 2/24/2017 1:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndrew Required Attendees: Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com) Categories: Commission Chambers Kalea Bay 1 Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Updates On June 17, 201 5, Lodge Abbott extended his 2004 golf course permit and clear cut two large sections of land in the fall. I called Matt McLean's office in September and November and asked that the site be inspected for any violations of the permit. Both times his office responded that all clearing was allowed by the permit. On April 16, 2016 I sent an email to County Commissioners, county attorney, county manager, county planning commissioners, Daryl Hughes and Matt McClean informing them that the golf course permit that the developer extended was a sham. There is no mention of a golf course in the amenities section of the Kalea Bay website and a Kalea Bay sales agent told me three times that they had no plans to build a golf course. In 2016 nearly the whole interior of the Golf Course parcel was cleared under the guise of building a Golf Course. It defies logic that the developer is truly building a golf course. . What savvy developer would build a new golf course in Collier County when many golf courses are struggling to make a profit? What developer wanting to sell $1 .5 million condos would not feature photos and information about the golf course he's building right across the road in the amenities section of his website. What developer building a golf course would instruct his sales agents to tell potential buyers that he isn't building a golf course? What developer building condo towers AND a golf course across the road would not be selling golf course memberships? The most recent golf course plans submitted to the County show 18 holes of golf crammed on the GC parcel. The plan does NOT show an entrance, clubhouse, parking lot, golf cart barn, driving range or practice green. In fact, the plan shows a driving range and practice green on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive where a maintenance building, guest suites and tennis courts are already built. We can't put back the centuries old cypress trees that have been cut down or restore the wetlands, but we can insist that the use of the land be limited to golf course or leave it alone to grow back. Several Collier County golf courses not able to make a profit requested that they be allowed to change their zoning to residential. County Commissioners put a moratorium on those requests on April 12, 2016. County staff were directed to draft an amendment to facilitate golf course conversion to other uses. Right now the language of that amendment is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. We theorize the developer is going ahead and clearing the land getting it ready for residential development so that when the new LDC amendment is in place, he will use it to change zoning from golf course to residential. We ask that the Golf Course Conversion Amendment apply only to golf courses that were fully constructed and in business prior to April 12, 2016. We also ask County Commissioners and staff to enforce terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement. Please refer to "Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement Analysis" to view specific concerns. The intent of the Settlement Agreement can be clarified by reading the transcript of the December 12, 2006 meeting among County Commissioners, Rich Yovanovich, concerned citizens and the developer. Please read pages 46--66 of the January 11 , 2008 Planning Commissioners meeting to clarify the issues brought to the county in the letter from our attorney, Ralf Brookes. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 , \ hsst!Wa i- .41 dza9rga; 1" 32 a4 gC .w yr �o y v 44 £��` �� ; 3 � � gN��iw; ,,,, t� ;51 igE! 4§ �p�+"^�p };fix+, S Y �a�,3Re£zg.E e. ZS z 4U £'C 'oii" o C R ��_^ id 4i1:S� 4y „11 a l k �-gle.z3 .4.1w % .,.,,s: .„,�V OQW. „. 0$8'A. a i,4^ R.:e Ci4WC QQN H. ...itf. f • fi; � r g O'".P. CI... . I _,.., , . ., 1:6 • Y 14 , -igi • ILLikt• .? " 1 F • s ff • f, �� ; 3 7 elle r• ' • • • - 'F ' ••aa • ai , O z -.-, 'J--I , i a ., :,,,, 41 1 , a • •aa • }j .°14.ir..).—eil3M Z:::t..:`e:Z;:.,,=Z;_„-:kk.S.-i:S j�; ' ♦ • 4,0,,:.:, ,tom„„.,„i,„,,,,A,i,se,,,,t,,„,: A0 -:4_-, - 1 1 1 .,;,";,i:.', ?' �:. • ,...,..',„\..1A..„,_1,.,,, ..‹M11 ' 2*t I 4 ... -‘ - ' 1 goy... t .. ..6 im __ .... „ _ : •_..,... z , ,.... ::::, , tS In ____. __� vl Q) .--,,,-----.-.t.-.-_-_ -- R =,,.Y— �.: _ _--------- ---- (, S►.,,, -'— - -- J --__0/588-S VS) 31011.1 17182130NYA 43-r.. __ , sn ..-d * i i i W v..........E 041 E si 0. li U 4� 2 410111111-* -414111r- .\,• • hi ' \T# •;. '•'C a ' • • .t .•a • 4 •a •♦ •a 4 4 ♦ • a ,1 a . Gmail FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE: Questions/Cocohatchee Bay- Kalea Bay (1d �O `p ars f 1a_fl 2/22/17,11:57 AM i r I 15 � . . 1 _ .Il 4 , GLOM FON, 1-6;..R__,.....--' __�1 i r A!t1tMTRFi.0 tT tt _. _....__..-: .- - { „.,its I AW. r..tk.+ .'T3' •'� y .1:3 ,-.7;::- `' ` Fx..... , ` , x t ` s k...,... ,-'..._,..c�r ,, t`F, f .�.....'""'"... "" , �.�a lj�. �� I`L'l� , . j,-/ ; ""..."'"'"""..."""t'''' .r.n ems: N.S. t Cy .A.w ! 1 i �/�.' wrtMr ,... _ .-1.. ...n...,.......,..a.„�.... • ':�;ii.rnMcnrswn 4i1 ' tfff 1 ea..wMwf[nrr�. f` .?1721 1 4, .f' ;'•,' '-�' �. )/ I'1 •: j ' (--1 uotswunn.anrc. 1 . a ; - _ 11,114310 �. -- / 1 > a r nG.IDtTt>•o.,Mi}..,RM.11.M1M 1:•:.:::•:-.-',..-:`,.,,'•...:-:-..- � --Fens '>` y 1 - `r(' -. � - , a� , �oLw..,maedietu.R.s.moteuxo..F.r.M.a.. '.>. s ." } ( 171.../ _ J / .1 i.i ' F m Mnrm'MINI n. �, 1 - n.OFtWIYtCMD..f ' moareSPAS, 15:/e"". -e. r. ! � MOM E , I J C1..TFR,OMR,01etna.Ui1@.6 4. von14.1.40 ~t _ ...�... ,,.. . F Awa i ' = Y INKGNS PASS ROAD \ .:.�.�.e -. -�: wGC.+rf r.aSnWD,tM'RRi____*AVIS le t�16�w'(' ,-- tT i N /GE IOTES IMMIX MiM WtROA1(f i !�__.�S ..........; 'I� F ;; -._._.7 ,1 -^`,"""y`` -.v. ` -1-110 7 } oill + ? � S: � /� 1 GGrMFLM POW \-- Wa fr fryEckCO*AM LW YACNTttliM !-r .I. MMrMMM61.YRr f g,-- , , t et ste ow e i - ' 1 "`-7 DRAINAGE BASIN MAP = ("� /. //} M -. "'-'"'ae GOLF COURSE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS ».,.... _ __. -.. Cocobatcbe P.U.D. RML*solun - NI'EMAN/=ARNO PLAN e. _» y - ..u... •1 _ _ +a..,-.----i-' 4 .,..�.......- t... a••. SIGNATURE COMMUNITIES,INC. Christopher 0.Scott,AICP,LEED-AP Planning Manager-Development Review 239.252.2460 From:Diane Rupnow[maitto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Wednesday,February 08,2017 5:42 PM To:ScavoneMichelle Cc:McLeanMatthew;ScottChris;BosiMichael;LevyMichael;DeaneConnie;BlevinsCaroline;McKennaJack;WilkisonDavid;French]ames Subject:Re:FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay [Quoted text hidden] https://maiLgoogle.cam/mail)?ui=2&ik=515654168x&view=pt&q=scay...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=15a1fe3c8190b615&sim1=15a232603fc3a208 Page 5 of 5 • * }c� ; rte 0 f It iay s<i } 44 * m } a ^�_•` Lpia } £ aA4? a 4R ap d { :•e1 + a s4 }' . a f f # . ; 18 :,..,,,,,,,.01„,,,,- t , -, it }K £ cet .,.......de.,.......) „}:w .s ., a "4 } w """s. . . ...;s ` f9 4 ` •fte.-i./ as- ' 4,°'+ . ti. • • ; k I '' '''' / ��""ff 0 4.04 Vic /40. ,*, . i. r e ,s aro.a&elWilimiliesuMPIMINP *.. . 00 TAP D 1.�tt M jai ■IrtJ tt .. ._. .rte .�..� .,.... ....,. �... i lj ,.✓"°}""''tet... - v i i .- # t e+. N i 064 /fir , , I1jY #sl *f 4 a i - is r I : . . :, .: t j / •:, , i 4. . t. {-tet l I Y * o f�M, f,r • +« lf • \ ♦ j f Z 'ra fjr\` \ y t'} 'f 1 j • , t 111 , 4.44 i a t f N fr" a 7 t 4 { K k 5'} L 4 ;fin# * i ` . � . 4 * • }f 44 - •i } a } r 4j4 r„ _ I s • t( i t ta•• ♦ , / a 4 I' 4 a fr .� } r. . r of a^i= ,. . ay} P )onrir1 Conynis ,n Me-c4-4 January 11, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think it's a good point to bring up, because it brought up a lot of discussion we needed to have about habitable. And Mr. Yovanovich has even provided a new definition of habitable, at some point we have to look at today. Although it turns out there are definitions in some of our codes, twice, two instances in fact, and they're in the code of laws. And by the way, like you just said, the applicant is in line with what those definitions fit. Let's go back to 10 first and see if there's anything that we need to discuss in paragraph 10 that we don't feel we finished last time or that's subject to the underlined and crossed out sections of the paragraph we have in front of us today based on the county attorney's draft language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, we were submitted a new development standard for the multi-family high-rise buildings. It actually says -- I guess R-1 is the zone on it. Could we put that up on the monitor? This is something that was submitted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got the SDP -- he's got the table from the SDP, not the development standard table, but the standard that was supplied in the SDP package. It was a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And my conversation is going to be on setbacks. There is one concern I have in that the setbacks for roads I wanted to review. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, you'll tell me if this is the right document, please. Is that the right one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it is. Rich, see the line, it's the third one down, the front yard distance from the internal road. It says ifs going to be 50 percent of the building height, which we know in our case is 100 feet. The buildings are 200 feet tall. Building two, three, four have a distance less than that. Is that a Page 46 January 11, 2008 problem? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, could you repeat your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you look at the standards, the front yard internal road setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is for the R-1 standards table? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, multi-family. You'll see that the requirement is for 100 feet, and some of those are -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, the explanation is, is that is measured to the garage, not the high-rise portion of the building, okay? So that's where those distances are equal to the garage. And as you know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The garage isn't that tall. So there isn't a problem. Second thing, put up -- you sent us a drawing that shows the site lines. And if you could focus in on the plan that's on the upper left side. It's a site plan called key map. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that the one you're referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, blow up the plan in the lower right. And the reason I'm looking at that is that does -- upper left, I'm sorry. It's called key map. If you could make that the full screen, that would be best. Maybe a little less screen. And my concern is that, we discussed this last time, is the setbacks. The setbacks in the development standards are to be one-half the combined height of the units. Well, I like the one with the black, that's why I was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You like the black one better? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it points out my concern. And my concern is that the setbacks in the development plan call for 200-foot setback. The buildings are all 200 foot in height. Added together, you get 400 feet. Divide it by two you get 200 feet. And these setbacks are a lot closer. Page 47 January 11, 2008 You're requesting us to allow to bring it down to 100 feet. And the concern is this is going to be just one wall of buildings as you go up Vanderbilt Drive. Now, I know where you're coming from, you're going to say well, we twisted the buildings. We have -- first of all, I don't think the site plan would show the buildings parallel -- the walls parallel met the setback to begin with. So all along through this whole process the setbacks were never -- between buildings, distance between buildings were never being met. What you actually did in the current design is you kind of rotated them a little bit and, you know, even -- again I go back to this October 9th letter from PMS, Inc. and it says that, you know, that the buildings didn't meet it. They were stating that in their -- and she states, however, the buildings have been slightly rotated to ensure compliance with the development standards. So the concern I have is that I don't think the development standards -- I think the development standard is intended for the setbacks as described in the chart, in the table, which would essentially produce a square of open space between the units. What you're asking for is to allow that to be brought down to half that dimension, or essentially half a square between them, which will give these things the appearance of a wall when you look at it from different vistas on Vanderbilt. So you're requesting that in here. So why are you requesting that, to make the site plan buildable or a desire or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: To make it buildable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in the original layout it did not meet the standards shown? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I -- before Richard answers, could you show me what part of the settlement agreement you're referring to that they're asking for that's different than what they already received in the PUD? Page 48 January 11, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In 10, the minimum separation of the habitable portion of the building shall be one-half the sum of the height of the habitable portion of the building, not to exceed 100 foot of separation for the habitable portion of the building. First of all, putting in there the one-half of the height again is just -- that's a teaser, because you know you can't make that. So the concern is that -- the problem is that the neighbors, I think, and I wasn't on the board then, I don't know what testimony was. But the intention was is to have these buildings spaced apart by pushing them up against each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still trying to get to -- I'm trying to understand where you're going. I'm sure Richard could answer it, but it may not help me try to figure out where you're going. If that's possible, I'd like to. I think the sentence you're referring to should have been changed, if I remember correctly from our last discussion where it begins on Page 7, buildings shall be one-half the sum of the height of the habitable portion of the buildings and shall be a minimum of 100 feet of separation for the habitable portion of the buildings. And if I recall correctly, it was never not to exceed 100 feet. That would be ridiculous. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I'm reading that -- one of the other comments I had further, Mark, is that the way it's written, it's actually locking it to be less than 100 feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you about put that in, does that fix your problem? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I think that if the project was sold to have a 200-foot separation between buildings, it should not have a 100-foot separation between buildings. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, it was never sold that way. The commission saw -- at that time saw the entire PUD document. And in that PUD document it provided for a mechanism to reduce the Page 49 January 11, 2008 separation of structures. And it said there had to be a common architectural theme and the buildings need to be skewed and basically not parallel. So the commission saw this. We provided an exhibit when we did the neighborhood meetings. Yet if you look at the exhibit, you could see that the structures were not 200 feet apart, we were only going about -- did we have a line on there that says the distance between buildings? No. But if you looked at the scale that was on that drawing, you would see that these buildings were not 200 feet apart. So I don't think we ever sold this as they were going to be 200 feet apart, else we wouldn't have had the common architectural language in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the common architectural language, let's make that simple. You're building the exact identical building. We could discuss whether that's good or bad. I personally wonder. So it's obviously common, they're twins. Everything, everybody is going to look alike, according to your SDP. MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, they're quintuplets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they're quintuplets. So we don't have to worry about them being a common architectural theme, they're identical. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've covered that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the concern is though -- but I think there's a clause in there that I know you're hanging on, and that is that if you do skew the buildings or twist them, then you can move -- the buildings can have less than the dimensions shown. Now, I think what that means from a planner, and Susan's our chief planner, that you have a spacing required. Yes, you can twist them a little bit, and if that does cause that dimension to be less, that's not a problem. I don't think it means no setbacks or no separation once you twist them. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're not trying for no separation. Page 50 January 11, 2008 We're just trying to implement the provision in the code -- I'm sorry, the PUD, that already says if you do these things we can minimize, reduce the building separation. I provided some language in an e-mail that says it has to be a minimum of 100 feet for the habitable tower portion of the structure, the parking garages will still meet their one-half the sum of the building height. We don't think under this site plan, frankly, that it's going to look like a wall of buildings. We think that it's going to look very nice. I mean, frankly, they're angled all the way up. The only issue that you were raising is there were two buildings that arguably were not skewed and they were parallel. So we wanted to make it clear, we didn't want to get into an argument down the road, you know, parallel means one thing in geometry. And I think I told you the last time I was here I wasn't very good at geometry. But once you skew it one degree, you're no longer parallel. And we just wanted to say, listen, you're going to end up with buildings that are a minimum 100 feet apart on the towers. We think from a view corridor coming down Vanderbilt Road with the landscaping buffer that we provided you, this is going to look fine, it's going to look nice, it implements the existing PUD, and it wasn't a change to the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But back to what you said earlier, Richard, I think much like -- remember when.I wanted you to look at this drawing, you wanted us to look at the other drawing, you can't see the building masses on those other drawings? I think most people would not notice the distance. Obviously I had to take out a scale to see what the distance was on the submitted PUD to find out what they are. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here in a little bit. So if we could get to some point you feel we can break, Page 51 January 11, 2008 Brad -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he walked away, Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I know that. No, I'm just suggesting if you at some point -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can take a break any time you want. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I was just answering my client's question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Anyway, my concern is that we put a chart in the table, that's really what prevails. And the exhibit, you know, there's a lot of caveats on it stating that it's subject to change and all the other things. So I think anybody relying on that data would be relying on the table. I think what the table means, and we can get some testimony from staff, that there's a massing expected. In this case everybody expected a square of open space between these buildings that, yes, if you rotated them or did something like that, of course the corners might swing in less to that dimension. So in other words, if ifs 190, 180 feet once you rotate them -- let me wait till the side bar is over. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, we could debate this point probably all day. The PUD says what the PUD says. There's a footnote that specifically allows for the buildings to get closer together if you meet the criteria of the PUD. We're not asking for any changes of the PUD document related to building separation. What we simply are trying to do is make it less ambiguous for both staff and us and for the general public to understand what the separation will be. And what we're saying is it will be a minimum separation for that livable portion of the building of 100 feet. I wasn't prepared and didn't think we were going to debate the original PUD document. It was adopted, we're implementing it. We're.. trying to make it clear. Had they not wanted -- if there had been an Page 52 January 11, 2008 intent that you would never be able to reduce the building separation, there wouldn't have been that footnote. And candidly, there wouldn't be a provision in the Land Development Code itself that allows for common architectural theme to result in the reduction of building separation from the minimum standards. It would have said thou shalt never be closer than 200 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here. And we'll come back at 10:15. Mr. Vigliotti and Ms. Caron both have questions at some point in this issue. So when we get back, Brad can finish with his. We'll get into Mr. Vigliotti's and Ms. Caron and we'll go from there. 10:15 we'll return. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, we'll resume the meeting where we had left off. And Mr. Schiffer was working on some questions concerning the last two sentences on -- starts on Page 6 and on Page 7 of the settlement agreement. After he finishes, Mr. Vigliotti was next, and then Ms. Caron. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess, Rich, just to go back. One thing, you mentioned that in the LDC there's a section of code that says if you have a common architectural theme -- and again, this county, one of its problem is it makes everything look the same, but we'll assume that's good, that's a given -- that if you rotate it you can reduce the separation between buildings. Is that -- I don't think that's in the LDC. There is something similar to that about clustering but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and that's under -- the common architectural theme talks about clustering. You go through a conditional use process. We went through a public hearing PUD process, so there was a public hearing process that occurs. And I don't believe -- and I could be wrong, I don't believe there Page 53 January 11, 2008 is any requirement for either skewing or rotating the buildings to meet the definition of common architectural theme for clustering. So instead of what you see on the visualizer where you have the buildings angled away from Vanderbilt Road, you could probably line them all up on Vanderbilt Road and really create the wall that you're fearful we'll be creating. Now, I think you have to look at all of this together. We have landscape requirements that we've provided for you. And this is actually the sight line study that shows you, as you're driving down or walking down Vanderbilt Drive, you're not going to see the buildings. So if you're not going to see the buildings, what's the impact on this necessary space between the buildings? Now, from a distance, I don't care where you are, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet, if you're a half a mile away, the buildings are going to look close together, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet. So I think if you look at what we're doing, we are meeting the requirements in the existing PUD; we are further away from Vanderbilt Drive than the minimum required; we have met the skewing and the common architectural theme. We're not asking to change the PUD, we're just asking to make it clear that the minimum distance has to be 100 feet. Because frankly, probably under the PUD we can get even closer, which I believe was one of your concerns when we talked the last time. I believe you asked me, Rich, can't you guys theoretically get within a couple of feet of each building. And we've said no. And we've answered that by saying the towers have got to at least be 100 feet from each other. So we thought we had addressed a lot of the concerns while staying consistent with the existing adopted PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess maybe, Mark, if it would be okay, let me have.Susan come down. Because the way that clause really reads is if that if you meet certain conditions it can be Page 54 January 11, 2008 administratively reviewed. Again, you know my opinion is that the intent of something like that from a planning concept, not from just looking at words and playing Philadelphia lawyer, from a planning concept, that means that if a building rotates, that would tend to close dimensions, and the dimensions would swing in. And if you do that, you won't be penalized because of the fact that you've skewed the building. But let me askSusw because she's the one that would be \ making that judgment. Or Ross might be. Richard, let Ross -- ‘;k‘ MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought he was going to sit over there. \k1/4,f_t MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, zoning and land development review. Susan's asked me to address this issue for you. The way we understand the PUD is -- well, the basic question is, is the reduction in setbacks or separation of structures limited by the PUD document? And the answer is no, the separation is unlimited. I can't see any grounds in there for intent to reduce it a certain amount, or it would have been specified. So the question I ask myself is does the applicant have the right to do what he did? And the answer was yes. There simply is nothing that limits the amount of reduction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Ross, you think what that meant -- here's what I think it meant. I think it meant that if you have two buildings, you have a separation, in this case a square, that if those buildings rotate, they close in on each other a little bit. And that's what that means, that essentially the scale of the project -- remember, I'm talking purely in the planning concept of buildings and mass -- that the scale of the project stays the same but the dimensions do close slightly when you rotate them. So when you're telling me that clause meant -- and,this was what was given to the public as a development standard, that if you slightly , skew your buildings, which is what they've done, you have no side Page 55 January 11, 2008 setback requirement,anyziore? h4 MR. GOCHENAUR: Basically that's correct. . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Really? !, MR. GOCHENAUR: Correct. Now, as far as the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From a planning concept you really feel -- MR. GOCHENAUR: As far as the intent. When the PUD was approved, I don't think we're going to find anything that explained the intent as far as a possible reduction in the amount or the distance. I think it was unlimited. It's unlimited here. I don't see where we have the right to tell the applicant that there's a limit to which he can reduce that separation. It's simply not stated in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the point. And this will be the last time. I don't want to be redundant. But I think as planners, not as reading little words and, you know, reading between lines, is that when you describe through the table the separation of these buildings to have essentially a square of space between them, that if you rotate those buildings a little bit, that square can open or close a little bit. You're saying that they essentially tricked us then by giving us a table, giving us a setback, knowing all the time that they're never going hit that description, they're never going to hit that dimension. MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, I'm not suggesting anyone was tricked. But I am saying that the board approved the setbacks as they appear in this table. And that reading these, without full knowledge of the intent or any real intimate knowledge of the PUD rezone itself, I have to say that this is the way I feel constrained to apply it. And I don't think Susan disagrees with that, which is why she asked me to explain this to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So as the one who made the administrative decision that if a building in this case was slightly skewed, that eliminated the requirement for building separation? Page 56 January 11, 2008 MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, that's my understanding of this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At our last meeting we discussed this particular point in depth. I believe almost everybody weighed in at different points, we spent a lot of time on it. What I had said is I'm not happy about it, I don't like it, but it's in the PUD. We're not here to change the PUD, nor can we. I just think it's something we have to live with and move on. And I believe it was the consensus of most of us, as I said, that it is the way it and we have to live with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a comment and then I've got a comment. Ms. Caron, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and it will be a comment at this point -- well, actually, I'll ask a question first to the county attorney. Do you agree that staff has no authority to make a judgment on the separation of these buildings? MR. KLATZKOW: I think -- just for visually, because I'm more of a visual person, if your buildings were like this and you required 200 feet, okay, and then they said you can make it slightly askew and thereby build them like this, I think that's an absurd interpretation. I think what the -- I think the way it reads is that there's discretion here -- and that includes this board as well because you're making recommendations to the board here, that if they're going to make this slightly skewed, that yes, they can reduce this, that's appropriate. The question is how much of a reduction is appropriate. And that's my view on that. Now, the planning director disagrees with that, and that's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you for that. Because Page 57 January 11, 2008 I think this is a critically important discussion to be having because this is not going to affect just this project. This will affect projects coming down the road. And if we suddenly decide that we have no authority -- no planning authority to decide whether 250 -- what in reality will be 251-foot plus buildings could essentially be five feet apart, the absurdity of that judgment is just beyond me. If this board thinks that 100 feet, when it should be 200 feet, is the correct way to go, then you'll make that decision. But I agree with Mr. Schiffer, that we're going to end up with essentially a wall of buildings 100 -- you know, barely 100 feet apart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had a comment I wanted to make. And I saw this sentence telling us that the applicant had agreed that the buildings would never be less than 100 feet apart. I don't know why the applicant wanted to do that, because basically the PUD stands on itself and they probably have a very good case on that footnote if they wanted to make one, regardless. So I'm wondering, to get off this point, because we're only discussing it because of these two sentences in the PUD that now with staffs testimony here today and the clarifications that have come out of discussion today by staff, why do you need these two sentences? You still got the PUD that dominates, and we're off the discussion and we go on to the rest of the paragraphs. So I'm asking the applicant, originally I saw a version of this document with those two sentences struck, because apparently someone at one time felt the PUD stood on its own. I understand your position in trying to voluntarily minimize the distance in which they could be put at, but it looks like that's causing a lot more controversy than the effort may have been worth. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will tell you, we think the benefit of that sentence is both to us and to the county so when there's personnel changes over time, there always are, or different people sitting in your seats, people could interpret the document differently. And we would Page 58 January 11, 2008 like that certainty because, candidly, we need to know that this site development plan , rove will be approved, or something similar to it if pp , changes happen will be approved in the future and not be subject to a debate over words in the future. And we thought -- I think staff would prefer to have the clarification so we all know it won't be less than 100 feet. We would like that in the document to provide certainty to us so -- and reasonable minds can disagree about what things mean, and we're just trying to make sure that this is clear that we have certainty in the future. And that's why we've asked to keep that in. I know it's an uncomfortable conversation we're having, but that's why it's in, and we think that it's beneficial to both sides to have that language in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the language only states a minimum. To get to that minimum, you still need to bring in the common architectural theme issue. So the language doesn't clear up any of the debate about that issue. It simply says you have a minimum of 100 feet that you can get to but you still got to fall back on what the debate has been to get there. So I'm not sure why the sentence helps you, but if you want to leave it in, then we will go forward. I just suggested, since I had seen it struck in the prior version, the first version that was sent to this committee back last year didn't have -- had that struck through as being omitted. Then it was put back in when you all realized it was coming to us, for some reason. But that's fine. It seemed simpler without it. We're on paragraph 10 -- Brad, did you have another question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My comment was, based on Ross's testimony, just take it out. Because we're ultimately going to vote on this thing. I certainly could -- I don't know how we're going to vote, if we vote by number, line item veto kind of thing maybe. But if we vote on this thing as a whole, I would never support that. Page 59 January 11, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're voting on it. I think we're simply making recommendations and we can all, on each recommendation, say we support it or don't support it. We're here to tell -- I thought we were here to describe to the BCC what the settlement agreement means in interpretation of the PUD that they formerly had, the differences. If some of us see this as a different interpretation than what the PUD meant, then that could be our recommendation. Others of us may not see that as a different interpretation. You're focusing on your dislike of a footnote in the PUD, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's a different interpretation. That's all I'm getting at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Make it clear, I'm focusing on the geometry of the construction of this project. Let me ask Ross one quick question before we jump away. Ross, this is in for SDP, the setbacks are shown. I saw some correspondence where you didn't accept the setbacks because the buildings were parallel but then they slightly skewed them and therefore triggering that footnote. And you've given us your interpretation of that. Have you signed off on the setbacks of this SDP already? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. They're revising the setbacks not for the high-rises but principally for the clubhouse and the single-family homes. For the high-rises, I've accepted the resubmittal that revised the setbacks and skewed the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially Richard is concerned about the future generations, you've signed it off, it's a done deal. This clause doesn't mean anything in this agreement anyway, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Let's keep in mind that this is almost like a package..The settlement agreement and the site development plan are Page 60 January 11, 2008 all going to the board at the same time. And, you know, defining what the setback is in the settlement agreement doesn't -- I don't know really where it gets us anyway, since the site development plan is going to have the setbacks anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the applicant wants to leave it in. We can recommend to take the two sentences out and that can be done with it, but -- MR YOVANOVICH: The concern is not about the present. But if we go in the future and we determine that we need to make a modification to the site development plan and we move the buildings a foot one way or the other, we don't want to get into a debate again on this issue. We want it to be understood and clear that we can go ahead and reduce the setbacks between the buildings. We don't want -- we don't want to be stuck with, Mr. Yovanovich, you moved it a foot. We think this new group doesn't agree that you're allowed to put buildings closer together. That's why this provision is in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW, Then I'm going to want some clarity. Because my understanding was that we were going to have a final site development plan and that's how this development was going to get 'built. I'm hearing now that well, maybe we're going to make changes after all this is over to that site development plan. So that what ultimately gets built is not what ultimately is going to go before this board. And I don't -- it's okay by me if it's okay with this board, but. that's what we're saying here right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that this settlement agreement is based upon the approval of the three SDPs. Once they're approved, they're done. Are you going to tell us that there's going to be more,.-- well, they'd be outside the settlement agreement then, would they not? MR. YOVANOVICH: They would be outside the settlement agreement. What we're looking for is clarification of what does the Page 61 _ _ January 11, 2008 PUD document mean in this settlement agreement. So if there is a change, people will say, Mr. Yovanovich, you're right, the buildings can be, as long as they meet the common architectural theme. The buildings are not parallel, they are skewed, you can be closer together but not less than 100 feet apart on the residential tower and the parking garages, some of the building height. So when we go in the future, we know we're allowed to do that. No maze, no language of, you know, what is this distance of, you know, what is -- how much skewing do you need to do to meet e intent of this. We want to know that if there is a change, that's how the PUD document will be interpreted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I myself, I thought the PUD language stood on its own. Your bringing it into this document is causing concerns with this panel. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm listening to the public discussion about it and there are people who are less certain that it stands onits h own and it's clear. And that's why we're trying to make it clear through the settlement agreement, so in the future we don't have a changing of minds as to what is clear in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments on paragraph 10? If not, we have to figure out how to resolve this paragraph and what kind of recommendation as far as the language goes we need to provide to the county attorney to include in the next draft that is produced. Any comments from the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, what I would prefer we do is remove this language, because -- and let it be something that the administrative staff take care of. If Richard is concerned about a future planner viewing it the way I would view it -- and remember, I have a degree in architecture and planning -- then that's a good concern. Page 62 January 11, 2008 But the point is I would never want it to look like this board endorsed this kind of interpretation of the setback. I don't think it's right, and I think it should just be struck. It should not be a problem. Quick, get your administrative stuff in there. And Ross is today's professional and he says that you can do what you want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tend to agree with you in the sense that I don't think the PUD needs any more clarification. I think you can manage yourself under the PUD. That's what you accepted. I don't see the need for these two sentences. I'd just as soon they were gone as well. I just don't see the need for them. I understand your concern, Richard, but you're a capable attorney and I'm sure you could argue whatever rights you had aren't going to go away whether these two sentences are there or not. Any other comments from anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to say one more thing. Is that when we get PUDs we get a development standard table, which everybody says that's the genetic code of the project. And then we get a drawing that everybody says can be fluctuated quite a bit. The standard really gave everybody the impression of the separation of these buildings. To do what we're doing now I think is a big mistake, the way it's being interpreted. Enough said. I mean, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, when I read a development standards table, and you know I read them all because every single meeting I harp on the footnotes. I read this one. I wasn't here when that one was approved, that was way before my time. But had it been here, I would have known what it meant, I would have known exactly what it meant and what the footnotes mean, because I realize they're critical, they're that important to what this committee approves.didn't know So I don't know if when this went through people what they mean or didn't read it. I sure would have known what it Page 63 January 11, 2008 meant and would have read it, so I'm assuming the other bodies on this board would have done the same thing. So I'm not in your camp in that regard, but I do believe that these two sentences are not needed, and my recommendation would be that they just be struck and not included as part of this settlement agreement. Is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I really agree with that. Do you need a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we need a motion, Mr. Klatzkow, or just consensus? MR. KLATZKOW: At the end I'm going to ask you to go through this so we have certainty as to what these changes are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let's just get a consensus. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, don't you feel that the Board of County Commissioners wanted our opinion on such a thing on whether it's a reasonable distance between structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wanted our opinion on how the settlement agreement differed than the PUD, how it changed the effect of the PUD. That's what they specifically said on the tape that we reviewed. If they wanted our opinion on all the aspects of this project, we could do that. But we would need about a month at the rate we're going and every day of the week to review it. I don't think they wanted that, nor would they be able to read that if we sent it to them. So we need to stick to the focus. Look at the settlement agreement, look at the issues in the settlement agreement and describe to the BCC how they vary from the PUD language that's already been approved or suggest remedies to that effect. And that's what I think we need to be focusing on. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But shouldn't we see what the consensus is as far as this board is concerned relative to the separation somewhere along the line, whether it's now or done at the end of the Page 64 January 11, 2008 hearings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think this is a popularity vote on the PUD's application. If it is, then that's -- we can do that, but I'm not going to take part in it because I don't think that was part of the direction this board was given. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I wasn't talking about a popularity report, I was talking about something that's whether it's good planning or bad planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that differs too amongst the people and the experience they have on this board -- or experience in that field. And I'm not sure everybody has the expertise to opine on what's good and bad planning from a perspective we'd be looking at this. Because we certainly haven't gone in, analyzed the PUD in regards to the presentations at the time and weighed in on the way this is utilized in other parts of either this county or the parts of Florida. So those are areas I don't see where this board had the --needs to get into. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Frankly, I prefer the language out. The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of .t. the day.f they want to chap e it and make these setbacks clos�x t will do so at their own risk,It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going ask for a -- I'm going to go down the line as far as recommending removal of this language. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself, yes. Page 65 January 11, 2008 Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIOLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will be the recommendation on paragraph 10. We now can move on to paragraph 11. Paragraph 11 didn't have any -- had a small change, and changed the word shall to may. Although I think there's a couple of changes in the last sentence that we just evolved out of the discussion we had on single-family where it says 1,200 square feet, it says each single-family dwelling unit shall be set back a minimum of 200 feet from the north and east boundaries. That should read, all structures shall be set back a minimum of 200 feet from all boundaries of the PUD project. MR. YOVANOVICH: And maybe it could even be simpler, is that I believe we provided you a development standards table for the single-family homes. Perhaps we could just refer to it as an exhibit instead of-- we would just say the single-family standards shall be as depicted in exhibit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, because we're not dealing with the issue of just single-family in regards to that portion of the sentence. We're dealing with setbacks from all PUD boundaries to be 200 feet. Which goes back to your fence discussion that we went in length and you got a comfort level that a fence was not an accessory structure. Basically, what we'd be saying is all structures would have to have at least a 200-foot setback from PUD boundaries, not just single-family as you're suggesting now in a single-family developments standards table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. Page 66 DIMENSIONS OF KALEA BAY TOWERS Paragraph 2 in the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement states, "This agreement and release expressly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control." Details of how the PUD would be developed were in 3 SDP's. In 2007, the Commissioners directed the Planning Commission to review the proposed Settlement Agreement in context of the PUD as well as the existing Land Development Code regulations. Details of discussions the Planning Commission had with Rich Yovanovich regarding all aspects of the PUD can be read in a transcript of their January 11 , 2008 Planning Commission meeting. WIDTH of TOWERS: There is no mention of width of towers in the Settlement Agreement. On original SDP the tower width is listed at 260'. Actual width of Tower 1 is 310' If each of the 5 towers is 50' wider than the 260' listed in the SDP, fifty times fives equates to almost an additional tower on site. HEIGHT of TOWERS: See AMENDED COCOHATCHEE BAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "R" DISTRICT TABLE II (in Settlement Agreement). In the Settlement Agreement, it states that the maximum height of towers is 200' of habitable space. Tower 1 exceeds 200 ft. in height because it has 2 levels of garage at its base and a pool and fitness center on the roof. It should be noted that "habitable space" actually begins on the upper level of the garage where the building manager's home is located. Since it contains a bathroom and kitchen, that is habitable space. SDPA PL20160002242 currently under review by County staff shows the highest point of Buildings 2-4 will be 224' 11 " with the uppermost finished ceiling being 199' 0"just under the 200' maximum. Paragraph 10 in the Settlement Agreement states, "Building Five as shown on the Revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B on the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in Building Height, as defined in Paragraph 3.5 entitled "Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the amended PUD, and Footnote 2 thereto. SDPA PL20160002242 currently under review by County staff shows the highest point of Building 5 will be 301 ' 1 1/4" with the uppermost finished ceiling height 276' 2 1/4" which would CLEARLY be a violation of the Settlement Agreement. HOWEVER, Brad Schiffer (former Collier Planning Commissioner and current head architect for the state of Florida) explained to me that on this chart I have to focus on the bottom of the chart where they show the elevation of the 3rd story floor (1st habitable level) to be at 100' instead of 0' as it did in the diagram for Buildings 2-4. So, that makes the uppermost finished ceiling of Building 5 to be 176 2 %" -still more than the 175' maximum, but not by much. . DISTANCE BETWEEN TOWERS: PUD Section 3.5 Table II located on page OR 4368 Pages 2415-16 "BH (Building Height) Building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure." "SBH (Sum of Building Height) Combined Height of two adjacent buildings for the purpose of determining setback requirements." The setback formula in the chart is 0.5 SBH *Footnote 3 So if Tower 1 is 200' tall and Tower 2 is 200' tall, the sum is 400' and half of that would be 200'—the setback requirement or distance between buildings. *Footnote 3 below 3.5 Table II states, "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed, or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." When I pointed out to County staff that the Towers appeared to be much closer together than allowed, Christ Scott replied to me, "Setbacks are based on the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD Section 3.5 Table II. Per the approved PUD, the minimum separation between structures is half the building height; however, buildings with common architectural theme that are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks an be administratively reduced. The SDPA under review shows buildings with a separation of at least 100' measured from the towers and 72' measured between parking structures." When we pointed out to County staff that the above was an error in how to calculate the setback requirement, Christ Scott responded that his answer to me had been a "typo". . . In the transcript of the Planning Commissioners meeting on January 11 , 2008, a lengthy discussion of this issue of inadequate setbacks begins on page 46 and continues through page 66. On pages 65-66 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to not allow language in the Settlement Agreement stating that the setbacks between buildings would be a minimum of 100' and County attorney, Jeff Klatzkow, stated, "The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time." County staff is saying that they are allowed to make an "administrative reduction" to the distance between buildings because of *Footnote 3 quoted above. I have written to County staff that I could understand an "administrative reduction" of 6" or 6' or even 16'; however, sliding the buildings to within a hundred feet in the back and 72' in the front when the required distance between buildings is supposed to be 200' is unacceptable. We do not think it is in the public's interest to allow 5 buildings which are 310' wide to be only 100' apart at one point and 72' apart at another point. This will equate to a tall wall of concrete obstructing our view in perpetuity. We want to bring this to the attention of Collier County Commissioners NOW, before County staff gives Towers 2-5 approval to be built as proposed in SDPA PL20160002242. I question if County staff has been properly reviewing the SDP and the Settlement Agreement before they approve deviations requested by developer. t p ik , ,t ISA ' d \\fill ` t4- ."5"k "..t { - . -v1 Rb --t V' z r-mm i>C4 i',,, . r+ mmO-+ O zt ' cs• . k .. N,, 1 :... ...,, i ,, 3,,, .., , . „. , ..., ts-- * t 1 . K p.„ ..: • ).a. ; ct. tt 'It; t - Jill)a, 0 at . t ,, ..r.--. _. _ . ,„:.- .,.. . ,, ,, 0 . 4 1 I - ' l'i ' A J . 0'1 Vv j P4) 4. ? n "Z W A� d f gypst Rt `G r ; i.7,1: :o v m., illii.4414u) 0 :1,4 :. 4, mm0 --1 Z. V 4 et . '' t ' \ t% t i f .,,., y, „:,,,,,,',, ,' ti 'fit ,, fi. = L .„ QIIQCIlTIICIll 7111OJO p,ACIl Koiea 3ay weJ s, `i Arieii 1 *I e3 Apr7, c204/4 ' t Sports enthusiasts will also have plenty to cheer for, from Florida Everbiades Hockey and arena �h :> football with championship-winning Florida Tarpons at nearby Germain Arena or Spring Training baseball games with the Boston Red Sox and Minnesota Twins in Fort Myers in nearby Fort Myers. There's also great tennis, sport fishing, .: ; " power boat races and even the world famous .0- w> - - swamp buggy races on the"Mile of Mud"at Florida Southwest Florida;s famed as"The Golf Capi:ai of Sports Park. Of course, no sport may enjoy greater the Work." local significance than golf. With its prolific per capita composite of public and private holes, the region has been herald "The Golf Capital of the World." Southwest Florida is home to some of the finest fairways on the planet and , fortunately, a few can be found close to Kalea Bay. From the courses of Cypress Woods, Eag—Lake, Heritage Bay and Naples Beach Hotel to that of Tiburon aerie Ritz Carlton Golf Resort, (home of the annual Franklin Templeton Shootout), Kalea Bay is positioned in the epicenter of lfer's_naradise.„ For all that's been referenced, bear in mind this is just a fraction of what can be found close to Kalea i gay Bay. Families will appreciate the proximity to - ,r{ x "``�°-"4`— " ="` schools, supermarkets, parks, churches, _ ' z_ healthcare services and more. There's still much -- � , ..1:1- 7-_,„' more in outdoor activities, entertainment and ,, a�'tt,s,• „ X11,.. • rhprichpri rnrnmiinit't pvPnrc that take nlarP D "‘ HM C "< 3 r- 0 5 7 S 5 0 -0 o (r) o o 0 00 c x 5) a E 0- --, 0D- D * o" '..-4. =4 a 0 '5- 0 00 0 p0 a 0 o (D 03 -0 a o (47\ '' D _, 00 ..4. ..... • -.< - CD3 _. ..2.,, c 3 < cr) — (14 0 (1) c 2, P 0 ° ED a 0 (D 5 -"-±-' CD 0 0 -4. (-6 3 (4. 0- --, 3 P E ...< (D b 0 C --'-• 3 (n 0 (D (D 0" 2 (D ro 0- 0- •.< -4 o O 7„ 5' ((13 ? i3 -7, C 0 , 0 0,, c 0 a (73 (/) C ><C 0 0 • 0 .0 -63 • 0 a c -eD- -4- D -C, 5- C -+ (7) CD C) • -- 5 ...,. cD 0 cr: Z — 00 . 0 -4•• (-3 0 — '.< 0 ,7,, 0 — , 0 Q -4. 0 < 3 0 ...< o c 0 0 0-• D Z a0 o (I) n -1 0 D 0 =.• 0 .-4 -,, O cr:,) 7:3 3 -4- 3 D 3 0 0 a 4-4 CD 0 0 -44- (D o 3 0 0 D - 3 o .1/) C (1) CD-- --z- 6- CD cn --, 0 D 0 D Zii 0 _4. C D 0 30 c a -:-. c.) Cr tA tn 0 •f-11 0 5. in 0 0 - 0 ..< -0 -1 .... cn 03 -*-• * 1"'"`J 0 0 0, 3 -' < ...44 = 0- 0) cry (;) cT) 01, c" u) - 0 a ,..„ -4- o „--• 5 0_ -- " 0 ,..,.. CD 0 ? 0 ..4...,) a ..., s (DO •-:•,-: • • 3 0 2 CD< . cn u) 0 , 0 ,..., — CO o n '3> 0 0 U) . c 0 --i- a 0 ,a * cp 0 3 us -6 _ •:•.-.. cr. Z • FIF 0 --h 4- -4- -1 ca - 0 -4- -41 <• o SD a: 0 ...4 Fri -t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 cn D 0 0 0 Cl) 0 * 3 <-• a ... . rk0 , 0, (n 5' c 0 (1)., -ii3 < w 0 3a kI\ L.—.-- o 72%: D g: 0 --- --. -0 D "0 0 o a (Art of" -, 0 (DO (l) (0 5 -0 C0 * 0 0 cf) CD ::+: 0 • 0 C ..< CD •D -o ..,...... , (-6 0 sci,) - 0 0 0- z 0 0 —sl) .i, --, 0 CDU) - 3.r, C - --:. a Co 0 0 a C?) (I) 0 c, 5 0 ._.. 0 CD a a (n- --; 0 O 0 0 a 0 (/) 0 * 5-"- O (1) u? 0 3 CD * a cn 0 2: -a 0 OC 5 0CD a)) (71 ••• 3 .4- D O 0 P- if 0 < 0 0 (D 5-- ...... (D < _ (D ,... email-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17,3:15 PM Grn l FW: DEVLP 5699 - Rupnow / RE: Questions /Cocohatchee Bay - Kalea Bay ScavoneMichelle <MichelleScavone@colliergov.net> Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:57 AM To: "rupnowdiane@gmail.com"<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>, ScottChris <ChrisScott@colliergov.net>, BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>, LevyMichael <MichaelLevy@colliergov.net>, DeaneConnie <ConnieDeane@colliergov.net>, BlevinsCaroline<CarolineBlevins@colliergov.net>, McKennaJack <JackMcKenna@colliergov.net>, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>, FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net> Mrs.Rupnow, Staff has received your correspondence titled "Questions Glen Eden on the Lakes Homeowners Have Regarding the Cocohatchee Bay"Golf Course Parcel"and Kalea Bay"and have provided the following responses.For clarity purposes,your specific questions are provided below with staff responses in bold. 1. How many acres of wetlands have been cleared for the "golf course"? How many acres of wetlands have been preserved? Does that meet the minimum requirement? Mitigation? RESPONSE: Permitting for wetland areas, including mitigation for impacted wetlands,are handled at the State level.The site has an existing Environmental Resource Permit for the entire site. Per the Settlement Agreement/Planned Unit Development (PUD),the development is required to provide 308.0+/- acres of Open Space (Preserve,Lakes and Landscape Buffers); the development currently has 292.09-acres within existing Collier County Conservation Easements(CCCE),5.78- acres of retained wetlands and 1.46-acres of retained uplands outside of the CCCE,8.20-acres in Lakes and 1.41-acres in landscaped buffers (308.94-acres total). 2. Has the gopher tortoise colony been relocated? If not, how is it being protected? RESPONSE:The Gopher Tortoises within the impact areas were relocated offsite to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) authorized recipient sites. Ten of the twelve burrows remain in the upland preserve near the pond;those burrows have been fenced in for protection. 3. Where will people park when they come to golf? Where will entrance/exit be? Show me https://mail.google.com/mail(?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 1 of Gmail-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17, 3:15 PM on current plans. RESPONSE:The Site Development Plan (SDP)for the golf course development(AR-694) identifies a future clubhouse area that is accessed from US41. No parking areas were approved as part of the SDP approval. Per the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD, Section 4.3 F. parking will be provided based on the size of the clubhouse and will include the golf course parking. A Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) is required for any future clubhouse and associated parking. 4. Will the tunnel under Vanderbilt Drive be used? In what way? *** We would like you to clarify buffers.The Settlement Agreement states that Glen Eden has 67.5' of buffer adjacent to it and that the developer has 100' of buffer. That land was originally intended for Livingston Road construction to connect Vanderbilt to 41. RESPONSE:The Tunnel shown on the approved SDP (AR-694) notes that it is to be completed by others.The County has not received any applications for this improvement.The approved SDP shows an existing 100' preserve area adjacent to Glen Eden. 5. Has that road been abandoned and has that land been vacated to Glen Eden & developer. Golf course plans [SDP-2001-AR-6941 sent from Jack McKenna's office dated October 1, 2015 showed a "200' min. setback for single family structures from golf course PUD boundary (TYP)" Does that have anything to do with the buffers between Glen Eden and the golf course? RESPONSE: It appears you are referring to the Preservation Easement/Right-of-Way Reservation that is located north of the Cocohatchee Bay PUD, identified as Tract F of Glen Eden Phase One. That future roadway is not included in the County's Long Range Transportation Plan.In regards to the two residential units allowed in the GC Section of the Plan Unit Development(PUD) Master Plan,they have not been approved as part of the existing SDP (AR-694). If proposed in the future, they would be required to meet the setbacks established in the Settlement Agreement and Section 4.4 of the PUD: 200'from PUD boundaries, 20'from golf course district boundaries and private roads.The 200'to a PUD boundary would include any required buffer yard. 6. I want you to show me on current plans the buffer on all sides of the proposed golf course. How much is between G.C. & Glen Eden. How much is between G.C. and Tarpon Cove? RESPONSE: Per the approved SDP (AR-694) there is an existing 100' preserve area between the golf course and the northern PUD Boundary with Glen Eden.There is an approved lake, berm, landscaping and fence/wall between the golf course on the west side of Tarpon Cove; per the approved SDP,there is approximately 100-150' between the golf course and the property line. The approved plans identify the area on the northern boundary of Tarpon Cove as future development. https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 2 of Gmail-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE: Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1J29/17,3:15 PM 7. Is parcel 6 used in the G.C. plans—how? Road? RESPONSE:There is no parcel 6 shown on the approved plans. 8. So, when the developer shows up requesting a change in the rooftop, size of the lakes or distance between buildings, who in the Planning Dept. checks the request against the "acceptable deviations" in the Settlement Agreement before the request is approved or denied? RESPONSE: Staff would review any proposed changes to the site plan for consistency with the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD.The Planning Director and Zoning Manager would be the authority to determine if any deviations are acceptable. 9. (I looked at plans submitted to the SFWMD and those plans show tennis courts and guest suites in that area. Shouldn't the plans show the same land usage in that area? The diagram on the Kalea Bay website also shows tennis courts and guest suites in that area.) Which plans show the TRUTH??? RESPONSE:The west side of Vanderbilt Drive,on the northern portion of the PUD, have been approved with Tennis, guest cottages,parking and a maintenance building with the SDPA, P120150000420. 10. We would like to see a plan of the entire Kalea Bay complex—not just Tower One. RESPONSE:The current development is split into three separate Site Development Plans.The golf course,east of Vanderbilt Drive,is included in AR-694. Building 1,the Clubhouse,tennis courts, guest cottages and maintenance building is included in SDPA-P120150000420, Kalea Bay Phase I. Buildings 2-5, Kalea Bay Phase II-VI was originally approved by SDP-AR-5284 and is currently being amended by SDPA, P120160002242 (currently under review). 11. Where are we in the permitting process on the land east of Vanderbilt? Is there a time limit on completing the "golf course?" Are these plans approved forever or do they ever expire? When do they expire? RESPONSE:The area east of Vanderbilt has an approved SDP,AR-694 and is currently under construction.Once construction has commenced,the permits/plans are considered active. All infrastructure improvements within 30 months of the pre-construction meeting and any subsequent extension, per LDC 10.02.03 H.3. 12. Where are we in the site plan for Kalea Bay west of Vanderbilt? Does Tower 2 have all its permits in place and approved? RESPONSE:Towers 2-5 are currently under review for SDPA approval (P120160002242). https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...mI=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 3 of; Gmail-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17,3:15 PM 13. (*** If you go to the Kalea Bay website and look at the diagram of the towers,they appear to be much closer together than on the SDP's.)_How can that be okay? RESPONSE: Setbacks are based on the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD Section 3.5 Table II. Per the approved PUD,the minimum separation between structures is half the building height; however, buildings with common architectural theme that are angled,skewed or offset from one another,and walls are not parallel to one another,the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The SDPA under review shows buildings with a separation of at least 100' measured from the towers and 72' measured between parking structures. 14. How do cabanas and guest suites and tower manager's homes affect the maximum 590 density? RESPONSE: Cabanas and guest suites are considered permitted uses and are not counted as dwelling units. On behalf of Christopher O.Scott,AICP,LEED-AP Planning Manager- Development Review Michelle Scavone, GMD Operations Coordinator From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdianecginail.corn] Sent: Friday,January 13, 2017 4:00 PM To: BosiMichael Subject: Questions Dear Mike, Thanks for meeting with me today. I am attaching the list of questions we have about the Cocohatchee Bay golf course and the Kalea Bay towers project. Please forward them to Jack McKenna or Matt McClean or the proper person who can answer these questions for us. https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 4 of Gmail-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE: Questions I Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17,315 PM In reviewing the responses below for Diane I think there is a problem with the answer to Question 13. The separation between buildings is 0.5 the Sum o'F Building Height, not Building Height. Attached is how I understood this requirement when presented to the Planning Commission when I was a member. Brad S'c:„ Sfer MA 239.254.0285 FYI I received this response from County Growth Management Dept. today. Please read and provide your feedback. Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane©gmail.com 402 580-1545 Forwarded message From: ScavoneMichelle <MichelleScavone c©colliergov.net> Date: Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:57 AM Subject: FW: DEVLP 5699- Rupnow / RE: Questions/Cocohatchee Bay- Kalea Bay To: "rupnowdiane©g'rnail.CQm" <rupnowdiane@grnail.corn> Cc: McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean©colliergov.net>, ScottChris <ChrisScottcccolliergov.net>, BosiMichael <MviichaelBosi©colliergov.net>, LevyMichael <MichaelLevy@coiliergov.net>, DeaneConnie <ConnieDeane©colliergov.net>, BlevinsCaroline <Caroline Bievinsgcoiliergov.net>, McKennaJack <JackMcKennat©coliiergov.net>, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison©Colliergov.net>, FrenchJames <jamesfr enchccolliergov.net> Mrs.Rupnow, Staff has received your correspondence titled"Questions Glen Eden on the Lakes Homeowners Have Regarding the Cocohatchee Bay"Golf Course Parcel" and Kalea Bay" and have provided the following responses.For clarity purposes,your specific questions are provided below with staff responses in bold. https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 6 of 7 Gmail-F W:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17,315 PM Thanks! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmaii.com 402 580-1545 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:18 PM To: Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>, David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>, Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>, Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>, Ralf Brookes <Ralf@ralfbrookesattorney.com> Cc:jodiebert@reagan.com, brad@taxis-usa.com, Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>, nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Bcc: "feegroup@aol.com"<feegroup@aol.com> FYI I received this response from County Growth Management Dept. today. Please read and provide your feedback. Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmaii.com 402 580-1545 [Quoted text hidden] Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com> Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:33 PM To: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> FYI (Brad Schiffer Air 239.254.0285 From: Brad Schiffer AIA [mailto:brad@TAXIS-usa.com] Sent: Sunday,January 29, 2017 3:33 PM To: `MichaelBosi@Colliergov.net' <MichaelBosi@Colliergov.net>; 'ChrisScott@Colliergov.net` <ChrisScott@Coll iergov.net> Subject: RE: FW: DEVLP 5699 - Rupnow/ RE: Questions/Cocohatchee Bay- Kalea Bay https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 5 of Gmait-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1129117,3:15 PM 13. (*** If you go to the Kalea Bay website and look at the diagram of the towers,they appear to be much closer together than on the SDP's.)_How can that be okay? RESPONSE: Setbacks are based on the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD Section 3.5 Table Per the approved PUD, : however,buildings with common architectural theme that are angled,skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another,the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The SDPA under review shows buildings with a separation of at least 100' measured from the towers and 72' measured between parking structures. On behalf of Christopher 0.Scott,AICP, LEED-AP Planning Manager - Development Review Michelle Scavone, GMD Operations Coordinator 2 attachments PUD Table 1.pdf 75K 7-71 distance between buildings.pdf 42K https://mail.google.com/mailini=28tik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cad052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 7 of'; RALF BROOKES, ATTORNEY Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law February 7,2017 Collier County do Collier County Attorney In Re: Cocohatchee Bav/Kalea Bay Development Issues Dear Collier County I represent a number of adjacent property owners and residents who have the following objections and concerns regarding the above referenced development: 1. The setback between the first building and proposed second building at Kalea Bay does not meet the minimum building setback of 1/2 the buildings sum height(i.e.,the total building heights when added together)which is at least 200' See,Table 3.5 in 4368 OR.Book p .2375, and 4368 OR.Book pp.2415-2416,and instead would provide less than 100 ft.in building separation. a. An administrative deviation should not be used to drastically and substantially reduce the setback between buildings by more than 100' and more than 1/2 the required setback. b. It is unreasonable to grant an administrative deviation of more than 100 feet and more than 1/2 the required setback without another public hearing to provide an opportunity for adjoining and nearby property owners to be heard regarding this substantial deviation. c. The similar architectural design of the 2 buildings does not alleviate the reduction the views by over 100'through the buildings that would impact the view of adjoining and neighboring residents(sometime colloquially referred to as the"condo canyons"effect). d. The calculation of building height sum for the setback is even greater than 400'because there is a habitable dwelling unit located on 2nd Floor Garage(See,Building Permit Plans depictingMANAGER's QUARTERS on the 2"d Floor Garage). This garage floor containing the managers dwelling unit should have been included in the building height calculation for the purposes of calculating building height sum for building setbacks, -or the manager's quarters should be removed from the building plans. 2. We are also concerned that the developer not miss,and that the County monitor and be aware of, the rapidly approaching,upcoming requirements contained in the Settlement Agreement: a. Of particular concern is the approaching deadline required by paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement for recording Restrictive Covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of the golf course parcel before or at the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the 1st bldg. Kalea Bay Tower 1,which is approaching Certificate of Occupancy in mid-2017 b. Similarly,Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement requires a 10-ft sidewalk be completed before,at or upon C.O. in 2017. We are referring these objections to the County for review and any necessary actions. Best regards, /s/Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral,Fl 33904 Phone(239)910-5464;fax(866)341-6086 RalfBrookes@,gmail.com Attachments Each building is 200+' Sum of Building Height=400+' Building Setback is 200+' t See OR Book 4368 Page 2375 and 2415(attached) s Ct CA .11 it i �' .0 C Q • t0 0 Mia L 1,.. 76 O L _� 3j :0(§0 N 'rII 11) CU J3 HI a en CL ns 3 • , . 0 N f C 4-, L. 'd m Y C ....tt T t N ea . j , L o 0 E L 4. o 111'2 u 4 Crii f4) ei N � n L, 43 a, 3 OR: 4368 PG: 2375 COCOEATCB>i'i BAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TABLE 1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS "RIr' 912^ HIGH-RISE MUL1I-FAIRLY Mtn Fatally Dwsilimp • Mlaieata Lot Area N/A 1 Ace _ Mltsisst-Lot WIdti N/ANIA Frost Yard-Internal Road 01 . 0.5 BH not las 03 BH not las than 25 feet than 25 fen r Ftnut Yard-Amway Bldg. 03 BH not las 0.5 BH not lest I ciadlag Parking Structure than ZS fen than 25 feet Front Yard-Vanderbilt Drive BH N/A •Front Yard-Aoessssry Bldg. 50 NIA SW Yard 0.5 BH 15 Rear Yard PrIebeiral 1 0.5 BH 15 ReirYard Aocwory \-;>"----- 1cR c3 > 5 10 Maxims Bldg 20 �? 35 / L, height t2 Didasoe Retinal 0 S SB ••3 OS BH trot las j boa 15 feet n t Row Area/km. , 1 1200 SF 1Tr 0 • • @l3 (Bsitdbi Wstek&Miq Ye tie retial distance ` Yabina*finished floor desks~a Ike apperaoraiiiat aeration albs V• SUFICitadBr ANHsip1)Ccent+iu of tonadjeceabuiieiry ip ofdsrnsii[slacknoriwas et. -tY AB dittos ase in Ism miss mberwlse aosd Ti j L c't �ii� •1 Fine pnds dad be reeurmd as fodoaa: A. If the prod is served by a public riW of-n ey.robe*is memmed from die adjsrast rislot-of-iny tire, B. tithe pmsl is served by a private road.sateck is nimere ad from the beck daub Garbed)or editor sesame a(tees sorbed). '2 Soldied he*for de mirth pepany lire adjacent 1s MborTrace in Melt 1"tract Mail be Mamas amrim fora mssimtm Waite of 130 feet. 4.4'3Whose balkiest midi nsother.the snbselt'tants cosmos ardeitecteral Some ase tedond. , Ie4!toned a offset from ass moodier.sad mods as not model r err 3.3 ._}........... __ __ nR• 4368 PGS 2415 -- IT 4 l .. 2. Roaeatiooal uses such as, bac not limited to, clubhouse, fitness center, health spa,tennis courts,swimming pools or similar recreation uses. 3. Any other aocessosy use which is comparable in name with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Department Director determines to be compatible in the 4H=as Districts. ' 3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1 A. Table I g sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "it" F Resideodsl Districts. B. Standards for parlsstg, landacapiag, sips and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Cocohstebee Bay PUD,are to be in axadeoce with Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated,required yards, heights,and floor area standards ;• to priucipai structures. C. Off♦treet . :,viay R C o , , _ shall be accessed by pig Iaisles or dri . 'tare separate , • .• . which seem more than one j development space area of not '- , • ten fee (10') in width as mem , „ ..1_- ,.-. -I , 1 separate any parting aide � II 7 • - 'ilii,jii r 1%."''' � .�.: wan +moi , I. . ' , s .. . ,, t — INVILOPMOTT STANDARDS MIRgay SWUM 1111014111111 IMAXIMOINI ins faiiirMai-Fmk birdlime 95131111111e Mile n Lot Ana N/A S,Mr,s 1AINL trauma Lot R1lii WA WA 14/A Riot/lard-Lest..d Lad •t 03 BH tot Isla 03 1s11 tin r RioyL taut 23 Int iaaiist 11 25 lis_.. 1ftsnt Yard - '- - 1 SW& 0.5 BH tot ins GURU asaissa 0.5 81133..1 t... Ltdadla r Parld a Ila ne tars dna 25 feet dttn-chit doll 25 la_ Freud Yard-Vwietit Dove BH WA NIA Frost Yard-Aee tarmy Utile. 50 Mde Yard 03 BA 4e Lar Yard FrI l l 03 311 ori Iii Ler Yard Amami 15 4 0 14 3.2 F 2/28/O11 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2416 F- u- -.Illasams> ___ • 20*Mies tot a tentio@s bsidltd200beet '2 Dionne@$dww.Pb'-- i t SPenebew 03 SBH acini.lib. Lijaggikg. i@e-Kane♦ 15 jet /bee Axes Iib. (SA) 1100 SF 1200 W 1mD W a4 3 Meddles Heidt)r Mang beiet able be no venial iionoe.ra.trd trite the dna bdidjbh Mina Boat demise* dr agNt.nt li@Yba ening demise of the menwire. 4m et suet MOO Ccadinea Matt d two jea.t badly *sr the mons et deter.ieieg newt nopienAl amao@r die b is eines otherwise soled, •1 Past yids shed be seeswd.follow. A 1f the pend le semi by a psblie sight-et-way.aMben is emend bate the a jeoeet dgm-oFwf lice. S. 1f ds peed is semi by a prime toed.Nibs&is.eae@ed bate the beck at cern N embed)at wise et persaat Of Wit coned). '2 nodes night ter the ands preparty lies nkat b Arbor Thee to the Mc'toot deli be jj ii sods tot a.eeiea. bdsbt et171440hot. p e3 bass bduir ldhs+Ma ones. - • 1� C . nesse Slew nes maw.nal voles we an pentad to nes well er,the stands- • • . r" i0 PILT ti s,„ rj� T f , • 3.3 212816 revision , _ 2 1, 1 r/ - : S 1 (i 1 I I l i i v..33ldvrl f t. 3 di o f N V1 p t . r l , i;. o { 4 5 . 2\. O i I1t'=`i1 #!# 1 HI # l`»11ill 111 swniNiwoaNO� � <6 ./�' L !� � e! 3 !3 :! !e ti 0 to ><W ,:l .s=.#,,; � , ,:, g€> ,.s € a iso AVG V31VN C T I i ,Nii : q ' ,''' '1 T . „,, :.:,.„ 1.,, ; rt.. , 1 ° ��% I.�iil (t{{: :I;�-tom, I i it s rte. : _ i i 1e ' K7 " v u_- �> _ f�1.._. jo-y — r 1 .. 1 L . C v L9 © ,� .13 15iiiiiii, 9 ,fes ® %%%//% ; t- — R a ,V.,/ .e. ,liarfark, ... 1 5-:El ,ti---.,--- -— -a : 4-, -Ai .1 me j' ,n ° °_ 1-imi - - ---i j i , itAl 1 e ________L-- __ Inn: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345IN m 126.e0 CIiI TO TU MAID UCOODID in the OIIICIAL UCOIDS of COW!' COMITY, IL COPIIS 17.00 MIMICS 4T! IIAOI 04/10(2011 it 10:440 D1I( ? I. !LOCI, CLAM IIT 7240 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this`W.\day of L,w.,. , , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle 4 :- :.•• and WHEREAS, the PUD 'r(• : on is also som „sts eferred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD;and /, `in r � WHEREAS, Lodge fil-i . •• titn�fo ", 10 : ..!1 4 • T entieth Judicial Circuit in r'- V l, � t•—•,- and for Collier County, F •• •. . a • 4 e -41,.! ty' • i inn concerning the proposed -,\\� _ ; amendment to the PUD's Ba f- .• le Management Pl t� being styled Lodge Abbott 1_. l.,' Associates.LLC v. Collier CounK - - t~` LIEC1R WHEREAS, on or around May 1, 2 , Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Hams Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.;and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4Xc) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the - regulations at issue. ----__.__. 1 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. ) As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy,Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, `j they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses ;;''7 described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this I f; `' requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or !• 1., • ever discontinued or abandoned for L any reason, then all of the �t including wi•T •tjh itation the entire golf course development area, except fQr/ti • io •. • •1 for th• tw (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green opti •:7~.. ' 't1).; h " to uses expressly allowed r^ I , in Paragraph 5.3 of the •• • s II . e".' , isions to these restrictive •J covenants will require a su• . .•, ty vote of the :• '• f " • , Commissioners. 9. To fully satisfy i •r • •, • : ,,,L•S.idewalks along adjacent off-site 1TE CI public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway en (10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006)in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached -- as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST,:- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGI 'E ItOCI4,CLERK COLLIER C• TY,F ORIDA By: I o i„/ By: 1/ v ak M"tR 041 " P - s uty lerk TOM I G,C • �' • signature alts'"" WI SES;4 1 ..41.,42_ 7- Signed Name 4. l G� AtOelt/Yck Print.• Name • deo. Si-�/-, Name r t rfig, :BOTT ASSOCIATES,LLC j gs ( l d/ ITS: .l*. Printed Name Ap• •ved as to form j ir 71111\C27 and e: S: • �, . c E-. III a►.�fa Je .4 A. Kl ow N` -1Q 1 Co Atto 1T.-y �r 9 2/28/08 revision GoodnerAngela Subject: Diane Rupnow&Judy Palay Location: Commissioner Office, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Start: Fri 1/20/2017 11:00 AM End: Fri 1/20/2017 11:30 AM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndrew Required Attendees: Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com); rupnowdiane@gmail.com Categories: Commission Chambers Cocohatchee golf course 1 Questions Glen Eden on the Lakes Homeowners Have Regarding the Cocohatchee Bay"Golf Course Parcel" and Kalea Bay Regarding the Golf Course adjacent to our properties: OHow many acres of wetlands have been cleared for the "golf course"? How many acres of wetlands have been preserved? Does that meet the minimum requirement? Mitigation? 2. Has the gopher tortoise colony been reloc�ted? If not, how is it being protected? lJJ Ps- S lh & . A �<^'- ? -t-o (LL Com 7 (pWhere will people park when they come to golf? Where will entrance/exit `fie? Show me on current plans:—`-' 4. Will the tunnel under Vanderbilt Drive be used? In what way? *** We would like you to clarify buffers. The Settlement Agreement states that Glen Eden has 67.5' of buffer adjacent to it and that the developer has 100' of buffer. That land was iriginally intended for Livingston Road construction to connect Vanderbilt to 41. .- 5. Has that road been abandoned and has that land been vacated to Glen Eden & developer. Golf course plans [SDP-2001-AR-694] sent from Jack McKenna's office dated b October 1, 2015 showed a "200' min. setback for single family structures from golf course PUD boundary (TYP)" Does that have anything to do with the buffers between Glen Eden and the golf course? 6. I want you to show me on current plans the buffer on all sides of the proposed golf course. How much is between G.C. & Glen Eden. How much is • between G.C. and Tarpon Cove? 7. Is parcel 6 used in the G.C. plans—how? Road? *** The Settlement Agreement clearly limits the use of the G.C. parcel to golf course, green open space with passive uses or at the most 2 estate style homes like large horse ranches. We are not questioning the developer's right to build a golf course adjacent to us. *** We DO question the developer's TRUTHFULNESS. We DO think his current actions defy LOGIC. Item 2 in the Settlement Agreement states, "This agreement and release expressly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release,the original PUD will control." 0411 8. So, when the developer shows up requesting a change in the rooftop, size of the lakes or distance between buildings, who in the Planning Dept. checks the request against the "acceptable deviations" in the Settlement Agreement before the request is approved or denied? ***On June 17, 2015, the developer extended a 2004 golf course permit (revised in 2008) and soon after that, began clearing the land under the guise of building a golf course. I called Matt McLean's office and Jack McKenna's asking they inspect and make sure the clearing was allowed by the permit. They got back to me that all clearing was allowed by the extended golf course permit. ***It defies LOGIC to think that Lodge Abbot is going to put a golf course on that land. At the December 18, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, Richard Grant (developer's current attorney) stated that they had abandoned the golf course and that golf is no longer as profitable or as popular as it once was. Several golf courses have gone to the County wanting to rezone their golf courses to residential. The Commissioners put a moratorium on those types of requests and appointed a committee to research a possible conversion process. I have read the Golf Course Conversion document and found the language to be vague a which could lead to broad interpretation by lawyers down the road. We expect this developer will come to the county in May and say. "Gosh I was going to build a golf course and I already cleared the land in preparation to build a golf course.but it just occurred to me that golf is no longer the popular sport it once was so I might not make a profit so I want to use this conversion process to convert this property to residential." On April 16. 2016 I sent an email to County Commissioners, Matt McLean, Daryl Hughes, Paula Brethauer, Michelle Scavone, Jack McKenna, Steve Nagle, Nick Casalanguida, Leo Ochs, and Jeff Klatzkow entitled, "Golf Course Permit is a Sham." I attached a screen shot of the Kalea Bay website section on amenities that informed prospective buyers about highly regarded golf courses nearby. One or more of the above recipients shared that information with the developer and within days the website was changed. The word "golf" is no longer mentioned anywhere on the Kalea Bay website. It defies LOGIC that a website trying to sell Kalea Bay condos would not include a section on the 0 great golf course they are building right across the road! TRUTH is missing here! I also shared in that message that I went to the Kalea Bay sales office and was told three times that they had no intention of building a golf course. I don't know what they are telling people now, but I would encourage you to go there yourself to find out what the sales staff is telling potential buyers today about a golf course... The response from the County was that you do not factor a developer's promotional materials into your decision making. I understand that—I really do. In return I ask you to understand our perspective. ***I asked to see the most current plans for the golf course and I was sent the plans I brought with me to our meeting. I paid $18 to have them enlarged so I could read them and now you tell me they are not the most current plans. . . . These plans show a driving range and putting green on the west side of Vanderbilt. I looked at plans submitted to the SFWMD and those plans show tennis courts and guest suites in that area. Shouldn't the plans show the same -)ir land usage in that area? The diagram on the Kalea Bay website also shows tennis courts and guest suites in that area. 9. Which plans show the TRUTH??? The original SDP's and the acceptable deviations stipulated in the Settlement Agreement should serve to show the county and the public what the development will look like upon completion. 10. We would like to see a plan of the entire Kalea Bay complex—not just Tower One. 11. Where are we in the permitting process on the land east of Vanderbilt? Is there a time limit on completing the "golf course?" Are these plans approved forever or do they ever expire? When do they expire? 12. Where are we in the site plan for Kalea Bay west of Vanderbilt? Does Tower 2 have all its permits in place and approved? *** If you go to the Kalea Bay website and look at the diagram of the towers, they appear to be much closer together than on the SDP's. 13. How can that be okay? Those of us driving down Vanderbilt and looking west would like to see a gap between those buildings. . . Those Settlement Agreement drawings were made so that the County and neighbors would know what Kalea Bay was going to look Iike. I spoke to Donna Reed Caron and Brad Schiffer about this and they agree with me. 14. How do cabanas and guest suites and tower manager's homes affect the maximum 590 density? ***we expect County government to be run with TRANSPARENCY. County Government should not be like "Let's Make a Deal." We expect everyone who approves anything for Kalea Bay or the "Golf Course" to enforce terms in the Settlement Agreement. Cocohatchee Bay Facts/Time Line The Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved in 2000 and included 532.09 acres of land, 590 dwelling units, 4 towers 20 stories tall, 1 tower 15 stories tall, a golf course with 3 holes west of Vanderbilt and 15 holes east of Vanderbilt. Of the 590 dwelling units, 110 units were approved east of Vanderbilt and 480 units were approved in the towers. The 2000 PUD also included a Bald Eagle Management Plan in which Abbott agreed to a "no construction zone" within 750' of the bald eagles' nest (1500' during nesting season.) When the bald eagle was removed from the endangered species list, Abbott applied for and received approval from state and federal agencies and submitted a site development plan. Planning Commission advised that a PUD amendment to amend the Bald Eagle Management Plan would first be required. May 10, 2005 BCC heard Abbott's amendment and disapproved by a vote of 4-1 . Abbott began litigation in June of 2005. May 1 , 2006 Abbott served a Bert Harris Notice of Claim on the County for over $247 million. At its December 12, 2006 Commissioners authorized making a written settlement offer to Lodge Abbott. Yovanovich assured Commissioners that his client would not be back asking to put housing on the golf course land. April 22, 2008 BCC approved Settlement Agreement. The document was dated June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts on June 10th The Settlement allowed108 dwelling units to be moved from the eastern parcel to the towers and assured that "if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reasons, then all of the GC Parcel including without limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those portions allowed for 2 residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the amended PUD Preserve Parcel" To read entire settlement go to: http://media.wix.com/ugd/d6f3a1 6aecd24ad6d948849c6b3cfec23e6cf4.pdf December 31 , 2013- Abbott submitted a proposal to build 280 dwelling units on Golf Course Parcel. This included multi-family housing and senior assisted living. March 19, 2014 -At NIM meeting at St. John's Church about 700 concerned citizens voiced opposition to Abbott's proposal. April 14 & 15, 2014- Meetings were hosted by_Commisioner Hiller so developer could meet with HOA leaders from surrounding subdivisions and charm them into approving of the 62 homes on %2 acre lots. May 2, 2014- Meeting at Hiller's Orange Blossom office at which new building proposal of 62 homes on �2 acres lots was shared with 3 of Glen Eden leaders. August, 2014- Abbott submitted new proposal to Planning Commission for approval to build 62 luxury homes on1/2 acre lots. December 18, 2014 Planning Commission approved proposal to build 62 homes on 1/2 acre lots. Mid January—March, 2015- Area residents vocalized opposition to opening the settlement agreement, amending it and rezoning the land from golf course to residential. March 24, 2015- At BCC meeting Commissioners Taylor and Fiala refused to support rezoning the land. Commissioners voted 5--0 to NOT reopen the Settlement Agreement. April 7, 2015- Richard Grant, the petitioner's attorney, sent an 8 page letter to County Manager asking BCC for reconsideration and threatening to sue the county if it wasn't granted. • April 14, 2015- At BCC meeting Hiller made a motion to bring this matter up for reconsideration. None of the other Commissioners would second it. April 26, 2015- The threat to sue the county was recanted in a full page $7,000 ad in Naples Daily News purportedly as a good-will gesture to the community when in fact the developer had no basis for a suit. June 17, 2015- Developer extended a 2004 Golf Course permit. September, 2015 Developer cleared two large sections of land and hauled hundreds of truck loads of fill from the Kalea Bay area to the golf course land. In September and again in November, Diane Rupnow contacted Matt McLean's and Daryl Hughes' offices to ask that inspectors go to the golf course parcel to see if there were permit violations. I was assured that all hauling of dirt and clearing of land was in compliance with the golf course permit. On April 16, 2016 Diane Rupnow sent an email to County Commissioners, county attorney, county manager, county planning commissioners, Daryl Hughes and Matt McClean Informing them that the golf course permit that the developer extended was a sham. There is no mention of a golf course being contructed in the amenities section of the Kalea Bay website and the Kalea Bay sales agent told my friend and me three times that they had no plans to build a golf course. Diane Rupnow requested the most recent golf course plans from Jack McKenna's office and those plans show 18 holes of golf crammed on the golf course parcel east of Vanderbilt Dr. and a driving range and other golf amenities on the west side of Vanderbilt. Plans the developer sent to SFWMD show tennis courts and guest suites in that driving range area. The Kalea Bay diagram on the website also show tennis courts and guest suites in that golf course amenities section. Shouldn't plans for land use sent to the County and the SFWMD be the same? If defies logic that the developer is truly clearing that land to build a golf course. On September 2, 2016 Dwight Brock, Clerk of Courts verified that Case No. 05-967-CA had never been recorded by Collier County or the developer. Jeffrey Klatzkow was the county attorney who signed the agreement in 2008 and he is still the county attorney. We think it must be illegal that the county didn't record the Settlement Agreement with the court. . . A colleague has sent Klatzkow several emails asking why the Settlement Agreement was not recorded. His response was that there is no need to record it since neither the county nor the developer are accusing the other of violating terms of the agreement. What about citizens of Collier County who feel that terms of the Settlement Agreement are being violated. Much more of the land has been cleared during the past two months. It appears that all that is left is a fringe of trees around the border. We can't put back the centuries old cypress trees that have been destroyed or restore the wetlands, but we can insist that the only thing that he can do with that land is build a golf course or leave it along to grow back . . . We want the 20 Judicial Court to help us see that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are upheld and it isn't even recorded there. In 2016, several Collier County golf courses not able to make a profit requested that they be allowed to change their zoning to residential. OCn April 12, 2016, ounty Commissioners put a moratorium on those requests until this spring when County staff are supposed to have new amendments drafted which will stipulate golf course conversion procedures. We fear the developer is going ahead and clearing the land getting it ready for residential development so that when the new amendment is in place, he will have a fast track to change the zoning from golf course to residential. • • r^• Y V` • - W / ,// W * :, ..-°. '. .- PACTICE • 1 W *i TEE I I i/// I /, / / .: y '-iV PRACTICE RANGE }. 1 { iiiiii/. ,)) TEACHING E LIMITS OF l' I + '. �%i/ W j. E ► GOLF LAKE'• AMENDMENT I - r • r : t i1 ...:„..,4,,, W '4. ! I ► W * .•iiI1. 1 • f ! WI W ". tel RLI T , 1, / 4I * W W * 'kr 0 GIN.. E• I W W 4 * 4. * ' ONRV 10 l ►j" ` W W W W � 4. .► W W W WI �4. Al Z . `y * * i 4. * V 4•; 4• 1 W W W W W W W ► 1y 4. W W W W W ' ' I' W :• 1 W *my.ikL. W W W 4. h . I• *\,,, WWYWWWWyWWWWWWW I I 4:1 fr ,W W W W W W 016• ' 4. 1 • .-+ y y ♦ y Y . ' 1 W• W W J iJIr/r * / Y W W W W . I I (5 r.r 1 y 4. y y W 4i Vi • II k. rW W4. t• kie* � rI LIMI S JOF W W W •44• : 14%. r'-' W .CON ERV.A770N. 4. 4. �i! '4 i4. Es •E.Nr (c.£.) W -: I 21 `W W W WW „ • ' y /W W . W W W Y 41 •, W •, W W W W W W W .�4♦ 0) y 4* J W W W W W W W W W / y y W W W W W '' 1 e ' y •/.4. W W y W W y W � ``� y` ty.i . * 1 W W W 4. W W W * ‘Fe,„,„'�vet "4•.•, • 1 W 4• W W W W ray W ✓ /L W •�. + "p • 4, • 4. 4. 4. W W W . L /J. W • Aill Q W W \ W W W W W ru, 1.17..0. VLV J5. . * - W W . W 4' W � v JO/ W O ' \ \ 9,, .2., .-W y 'fl W W 4. W . a�9.: . W W W i i W `W W W W W 4. J V W . . / J. 4• 4) W W.M.H. L. �. t W J J• {1 /1.. I I j .0'-"W W W W J' Y v W y W - - . I I 1 I * '�^* '25''PROPRIETARY* * "f-...__ * I 1 • I///i - W •1 * EA'SF.MENT v W W W 1 I//I . W W 1W y 4. 4. * W 4. * W I 1 ///I . y 1 W ..• . W W W I ,,,, J / W •Y y"-- 1 //,,, I / t _ v 14. v /' 4. -30-. W * ,. / \ I ,:40 •.. •_. - W `-P`4. L W W -1.i� * , ///// v v . . y W W W W W ,, 1 \ \ - ___ . . . _ . , : ' .: • ISI „it ,, , ., . . _ .. .1 , , . . . • , , ,, . . `y ,, - ._ :, - =- .. ' ! !! Irl !/1//!r!1!//J --..- JJ///////II ////////I /. i i _-W + i W W y i y * W •W 'J W * W y II/////!// /I////// ////I. /////////!/J /I////// /////. r V y W W * W W W i W iW i y W y y * J W W /61,//I/!/ ��.• • J * W J ' 4' r W W W y p. 'T -.. •. /HALFWAY A ® . W W ..moi W W W �• t' • /lee a +•'`� W � Wi }�iii// s '+' v0y W Q� • }•�'.:1!!!:•_•• * W 4 W 4. _. •:b •••••••••,.r.r/.' • t .•.y.-•am • y w W W t � W W y /•-1� ///r////////I /r/ '1, W W y W ''.i © y i r/////Irl/// ' t•'1 ' ` . , W W i W W `�' , , . ='=,.V W W W W W ya'`�,.' . F. W W y W W W W.\ • � � W j :�.:O � .. / • i Alt", . -4 Aviir • W ,.� ��} -VbORYrf` ' 0,000 _�- yy v '•.,_.•-•.... . `~ t``� ' LAKE—'T: 4. r-,.\ ..._iii ' R.ESTROO' �' • FAGILTE f . f � • IW, .y W . LAKE-1 }3 4. //I l///.. // . • J . - Li • ... • .// //r/// r W W W � • i/ II// / // WJyyt� Se . • • • ////// I/1/I/ / W J W y y w /e../.4,-",/:- j W ////I///////////////l/ ////,'J . G 1. W!//!//// /!/IIr/I/!!/// + / ' .0' /Jot,/ • y.'''�' /I///J//!IJ////Jr!//J!/! \ l / //J p W I!!! /!//Illllrllr/!// W W * * W W ; ' • /// // ) ///// /I// // , y y W W V //I/ le 1 ////////////////// r• •. +� ff,0 ' ! l/f//tIf///////! ', /II//// //// t I !/III • � V W *'"#''' v .i.,' ',di,/ \ • . ..3 / / / / // t-) ` A /r///r/I _ i * J i. � a. 4,' CUTr, :::..1'::::' •• , * W , OVERSTORY • s /!/!//// E-2 lit AKE-5 Q' � ON ' I // / ! : ' / ! ! J,. ' III !! • ////// I//I ' . may /// / // / If. , //IJ////I• y/!//1 ♦//!/ / // /!//! /I / / / y . i t/I// //////// p .: ' // !J/ J1/!J //J/!/!!J//!/ . ,,,,,,,/,4,;(4....4,,,..., /, ,-, • /!// /J/ ; !! //ma / /!I/ �.: , 140 1\ . '......' --. / /: !I//!// // I/If////! r //I/ iUII = / . I//I//. f, //////!/////II/////// • . /IIIII//////!/II/l/ /1;"1./4. /!!, ./ /// /!///////J! r/l// ocI % _ /!!! /// /II/! //II/ / /!!///! • i 0. .7!1111'.. '' ''''k I ) . // !!// , 1 IIIII �� +�,r LAKE )• /! ) II • s. -. 0%. / , lI ,mr. O J • 1 • • II/ . /!// 411, //// // .L. / r///,/ /// //// I!////I////f ///II//f///r///I. I ///,J'`• - ///// / LAKE-3 ,,,,,,.-..%.,...,,-�4 '• /l////////!ll//////!///!r/J! . 1 •• ' /rJ I//// • }...•J. ��.a_•+'•"•4x. 1' • ....0 w I/III!/r///II///////////r// L. : �I// ///I/ . • 'r/ill�ltll`+\:\`'t'"' _,,,r!•!//r!!r/!J��!!r///r//J M1 - //! r/r/// • . „„:,,.....,,,,,, • • /////• /j ..� . ... /I/////// i// //J// s/ i // /////I// // / /II////// /l///,I// •. J I////AW//1/ / . 'eel J/1 1 . r//I!////II/////////I II//r/!/II/////////�(,.(.(I/f///////!I//////!/ ////I/J'////./// ///J J!/- ' /iIlr///I/////// //I////////////!{y(�f'///////I/I/I////IIIII //!/l u///l! .. ..wolgii //////I/!/!//s/• v//I/IIIII/!//I/II/ / JJ ,/I .., __ GIN PASS—ROAfl= .R. _ t = _ —___—} 1 1._. _ ��OJ HT sues — — ,F Ni __i f/A'.— TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION / © IMPACTS FOR STORM INSTALLATION, CLEARING LIMITS SUMARRY GOLF COURSE SDP* f RESTORE WITH UPLAND AND / WETLAND PLANTINGS UPON DESCRIPTION AREA (ACRES) //� COMPLETION OF STORM GOLF COURSE 69.59 INSTALLA770N. OTHER OPEN SPACE(TO BE CLEARED) 23.14 a1 CARTPATHS/BOARDWALKS 5.04LAKES 1X$5i'il •'' TEMP. ACCESS ROAD/SEYAL£S3.36j� TOTAL AREA 70 BE CLEARED 118.98 I 1 • NO ADDAIONAL CLEARING PROPOSED WITH TI-IIS SDP UOD>F'CAT.'CN• t4 .-- FROM fliCIWA1 crP 9nn1_sQ_RQA /r\ I W W W W W W (!- W W W W W W A A '-\ \ ,O 1. k W W Ald •A • A l .. • ` ' A AMENDMENT PLANS FOR N ® SDP-2001-AR-694 ' 200' MIN. SETBACK FOR SINGLE FAMILY - STRUCTURES FROM GOLF COURSE PUD �X� i.'; L+ • BOUNDARY MP) - y y ► L' ,/VOTE SFWMD JURISDICTIONAL LINES HEREON AS SHOWN ON APPROVED ERP PLANS O ,O (PERMIT # 11-01682-P) S 0 100' 200' 400' SCALE 1" = 200' MODIFICATION \' AREAA _. ------- (SEE - (SEE SHEETS 6&7) SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY (EAST OF M.H.W,L,) DESCRIPTION WEST EAST TOTAL T TOTAL PROJECT BREAKDOWN(ALL PHASES) TOTAL SDP SITE AREA 91.23 AC 174.76 AC 265.99 AC 100% GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL PRESERVE(C.C.C.E.)) 37.29 AC 47.48 AC 84,77 AC 31.9% 1. THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS DOES NOT TOTAL RETAINED UPLAND (OUTSIDE C.E.) - 1,46 AC 1.46 AC 0.5% AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH TOTAL RETAINED WETLAND (OUTSIDE C.E.) 0.65 AC 5.43 AC 6.08 AC 2.3% ARE INCONSISTENT WITH EXISTING EASEMENTS OF RECORD, 2. EXOTIC VEGETATION AS DEFINED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND TOTAL PROJECT POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 53.29 AC 120.39 AC 173.68 AC 65.3% DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC), SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND SUBSEQUENT ANNUAL EXOTIC REMOVAL (IN PERPETUITY) SHALL BE THE GOLF COURSE PHASE BREAKDOWN RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. INITIAL EXOTIC REMOVAL TOTAL GOLF COURSE PHASE �� AC 166,51 AC !79,28 AC 100X SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE. AC 47,119AC 26.0% 3. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT OF ALL TOTAL PRESERVE(C.C.C.E)* 1.81 12.77 AC 45.30 DEAD LANDSCAPE MATERIAL AND FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE REQUIRED TOTAL RETAINED UPLAND (OUTSIDE C.C.CE.), - 1.46 AC 1,46 AC 0.8% IRRIGATION SYSTEM. TOTAL RETAINED WETLAND (OUTSIDE C.C.C.E.) 0.14 AC 5,43 AC 5.57 AC 3.1% 4. SEE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GOLF PLAY AREA/OTHER OPEN SPACE 9,78 AC 89.11 AC 98.89 AC 55.3%, REGARDING NATIVE TREES TO REMAIN AND/OR REVEGETATION OF NATIVE TOTAL PERVIOUS 11.73 AC 143.30 AC 153.03 AC 85.4% SPECIES, LAKES 0.95 AC 16.90 AO 17.85 AC 9.9% 5. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENTPORAOF ION FENCE THE APPLICANT SHALL CART PATHS/BOARDWALKS 0.09 AC 4.95 AC 5,04 AC 2.6X INSTALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCE(e.g. ENVIROFENCE)ALONG CONSTRUCTION ACCESS - 3.36 AC 3.36 AC 1.9% THE LIMITS OF CLEARING OF THE EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN ON TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 1,04 AC 25.21 AC 26,25 AC 14.6% SITE. THIS FENCE SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 6. ALL EXOTICS WITHIN THE FIRST 75 FEET OF THE OUTER EDGE OF 'SEE THE PRESERVE MANAGMENT PLAN (SHEET 12 OF 15)FOR A BREAKDOWN OF WETLAND/UPLAND/C.T.P. PRESERVE AREAS WITHIN THCONSERVATION EASEMENT. 0 EVERY PRESERVE SHALL BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED, OR THE TREE CUT DOWN TO GRADE AND THE STUMP TREATED WITH AN U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY APPROVED HERBICIDE AND A VISUAL TRACE DYE APPLIED. EXOTICS WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF THE PRESERVE MAY BE APPROVED TO BE TREATED IN PLACE, IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT PHYSICAL REMOVAL MIGHT CAUSE MORE DAMAGE TO E NATIVE VEGETATION IN THE PRESERVE. WHEN PROHIBITED EXOTIC ETADON IS REMOVED, BUT THE BASE OF THE VEGETATION REMAINS, BASE SHALL RE TREATED WITH AN U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL TECTION AGENCY APPROVED HERBICIDE AND A VISUAL TRACE DYE LL DE APPLIED. CKPILING OVER 6 FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE FENCED IN ACCORDANCE H COLLIER COUNTY REQUIREMENTS _ 1+OUIDTES MFRS MCO1t7 I I. 9r IH/S.twin HEHr `\ M171G17pN PARCEL (PER SFNMD PERMIT) C to \,,,\ 4 -.., SHEET 5 sNEET 5 5 • m - --•_0....7 .,. VTC ~�^�'.. -.MIR. � ;\�\\�IO ri , A;N. ,% -,....-...,-:f,....,..zer..,,,,,,,. •,• wu e II• : • ` ms' �` ,e '% nl attachment 919x638 pixels 01 d. Ke& & y kA,W)61`-fe Sports enthusiasts will also have plenty to cheer for, from Florida Everblades Hockey and arena football with championship-winning Florida Tarpons at nearby Germain Arena or Spring • Training baseball games with the Boston Red Sox and Minnesota Twins in Fort Myers in nearby Fort Myers. There's also great tennis, sport fishing, - power boat races and even the world famous 4ffk swamp buggy races on the "Mile of Mud"at Florida Southwest Florida is famed as"The Golf Capital of Sports Park. Of course, no sport may enjoy greater the World.' local significance than golf. With its prolific per capita composite of public and private holes, the region has been heralded as "The Golf Capital of • the World." Southwest Florida is home to some of the finest fairways on the planet and fortunately, quite a few can be found close to Kalea Bay. From the courses of Cypress Woods, Eagle Lake, Heritage Bay and Naples Beach Hotel to that of Tiburon at the Ritz Carlton Golf Resort, (home of the annual Franklin Templeton Shootout), Kalea Bay is positioned in the epicenter of a golfer's paradise. For all that's been referenced, bear in mind this is just a fraction of what can be found close to Kalea f ,:,..• . ;;, ., Bay. Families will appreciate the proximity to '` — "' schools, supermarkets, parks, churches, healthcare services and more. There's still much y more in outdoor activities, entertainment and , ,: rhprichPrl rnmmunity PvPntc that takes nlarp 11 i) Ill -�, m OZr►fi # M r : , -I m M 4 r �.. . � 4 `.... � { —fir �� , J 1 \s �% y� i .g r €, rt• { y ,jj, llt - ,. a L (\, $ # i tom. # • 0 f . LL N ximQH i �� i h� •. Ct,7 x) m O —1 { i '. , ,2 ' - 1 t . 0, > 44 4" I ,nj t ftX r il' s' .741 c �.. SI 4 x3 m Q H 4 41 r £ a t '111fl'i ' m (1) IPI:r4 Ili ' ':tiet 'ijittik ;1'.! ACt'*111111h„ i '‘'" 'PA, ,,- ' t fw SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RESPONSE: A quick check of activity on the District website (e-permitting) indicates a modification of the permit (11-01882-P) has occurred. I found application # 160119-22 which appears might have changed the wetland layout on the east side of Vanderbilt drive. I will refer you to that application for the details. There are new maps of the wetlands indicating which will go and which will stay. District staff work on a site by site schedule and the amount of project sites in Collier prohibit a site visit but, we have the site on the aerial inspection list and if staff sees anything besides what the District permit allows they will address the issues with the developer. 1 t- f Ft „Z. / On June 17, 201 5, Lodge Abbott extended his 2004 golf course permit and clear cut two large sections of land in the fall. I called Matt McLean's office in September and November and asked that the site be inspected for any violations of the permit. Both times his office responded that all clearing was allowed by the permit. On October 22, 201 5 Mark Strain, the Hearing Examiner, absolved Lodge Abbott from number 5 on the Settlement Agreement in which the developer agreed to pay $3 million to affordable housing. This decision was made by one man even though Items 20 and 21 of the Settlement Agreement state that this agreement "shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida" and that this agreement "can be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release." I contend that item 21 was violated when Mark Strain absolved the developer of his $3 million payment. On April 1 6, 2016 I sent an email to County Commissioners, county attorney, county manager, county planning commissioners, Daryl Hughes and Matt McClean informing them that the golf course permit that the developer extended was a sham. There is no mention of a golf course in the amenities section of the Kalea Bay website and the Kalea Bay sales agent told my friend and me three times that they had no plans to build a golf course. On September 2. 2016 I met with Dwight Brock, clerk of courts, who verified that Case No. 05-967-CA was never recorded by Collier County or the developer. Jeffrey Klatzkow was the county attorney who signed the agreement in 2008 and he is still the county attorney. I think it must be illegal that the county didn't record the Settlement Agreement with the court, but I am clueless about legal matters. A colleague shared that he has sent several emails to Klatzkow asking him why it wasn't recorded and his response was that there is no need since neither the county nor the developer are accusing the other of violating terms of the agreement. What about citizens of Collier County who feel that terms are being violated? Much more of the land has been cleared during the past two months. It appears that all that is left is a fringe of trees around the border. Hundreds of cars are parked inside the gate so many workers are on site and it sounds like they may be building something. . . We can't put back the centuries old cypress trees that he cut down or restore the wetlands, but we can insist that the use of the land be limited to golf course or leave it alone to grow back. I want the 20th judicial court to help us see that the terms of the Settlement are upheld and it isn't even recorded there. Several Collier County golf courses not able to make a profit requested that they be allowed to change their zoning to residential. County Commissioners put a moratorium on those requests on April 12, 2016. County staff were directed to draft an amendment to facilitate golf course conversion to other uses. Right now the language of that amendment is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. We theorize the developer is going ahead and clearing the land getting it ready for residential development so that when the new LDC amendment is in place, he will automatically qualify to change zoning from golf course to residential. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmall.com 402 580-1545 Page 1 of 1 Subj: Paragraph 5.3 Date: 3/2/2015 1:51:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time From: rupnowdiane@gmail,com To: cps2004c glenedenonthelakes.us, dacressygmail.com, aellisonathome@aol.com, JudiPalav(a.aol.com In paragraph 8 of the Settlement agreement, it says, "if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reasons, then all of the GC Parcel including without limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those portions allowed for the two(2) residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the amended PUD Preserve Parcel." "Paragraph 5.3 of the amended PUD Preserve Parcel" is in "Section V Preserve District" The uses in the original settlement included: 1. Passive parks, passive recreational areas, boardwalks; 2. Biking, hiking and nature trails; 3. Golf cart paths are permitted in the preserve areas outside the limits of the bald eagle primary zone.;4. Wildlife sanitary.; 5. Pathways and or bridges.; 6. Recreational shelters, in preserve upland areas.; 7. Drainage and Water management facilities as my be required by SFWMD.; "Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Department Director determines to be compatible." So Paragraph 8 DOES say"shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity" to the above uses. The developer said at the MM meeting that the settlement said "open land"which means"vacant land". The developer or his attorney said the the settlement didn't use the term"perpetuity". it does. The developer said this land is not and was never intended to be"preserve" land. . . I think the language proves otherwise. . . IT SEEMS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT THE USES REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 8 ARE INCLUDED IN SECTION V, THE PRESERVES SECTION. His emphatic denial that his land is considered "preserve" land can be argued by the language in paragraph 8. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane( gmail.com 402 580-1545 Mnnrlav Marrh 07 ?MC ACCT Tnrli Palav --TR, 5 is -44\e_ fl e de ]ôp'Ter Terms of"2014 Amended and Restated Cocohatchee Bay PUD" 1. Deletes from end of paragraph 2, "The Agreement and Release expressly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control." 2. Deletes entire 5th paragraph, "Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable worforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment." 3. Modifies paragraph 6 to be consistent with the following, "The parties agree that certain sums of the previously provided$3 million have not yet been expended by the County to fund the Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements as contemplated in the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Parties agree that any such funds not yet expended by the County will be applied in the manner set forth in Section 6.7(3) of the 2014 Amended and Restated Cocohatchee Bay PUD." want to see details of this 4. Deletes entire 8th paragraph, "As each residential condominiuym building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth (1/5) of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reasons, then all of the GC Parcel including without limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those portions allowed for the two (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the amended PUD Preserve Parcel. Any revisions to these restrictive covenants will require a supermajority vote of the Board of County Commissioners." 5. Deletes entire 11th paragraph, "The maximum number of dwellings units to be constructed by Lodge shall not exceed 590 units. Of these, a maximum of 590 units may be multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However, two (2) units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as set forth in Section 4.4 in the amended PUD, attached hereto as Exhibit 2" 6. Deletes entire 12th paragraph, "What has been referred to as the R-1 and R- 2 Parcels shall be replaced by a singe R parcel as set forth in the revised PUD Master Plan, attached to the amended PUD. The development standards for the R Parcel are as set forth in Table 11 of Paragraph 3.5 of the amended PUD (except as may be expressly modified by the Agreement and Release). *"The allowable density and development standards are as set forth in the 2014 Amended and Restated Cocohatchee PUD" 7. All other provisions of the Settlement Agreement making reference to the Amended PUD and its content are amended to refer to the 2014 Amended and Restated Cocohatchee Bay PUD, the latter shall control. 8. Except as modified hereby, the Settlement Agreement remains to full force and effect. Retn: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 RIC PIE 826.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD RECORDED in the OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COMITY, PL COPIES 41.00 IJYEROFPICK 4TH FLOOR 06/10/2008 at 10:46AM DWIGHT B, BROCK, CLERK BIT 7240 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this N4‘day of ,t..,e__, , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC ("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle r4a a ei? _ I . and Zvi-- -- U T WHEREAS, the PUD ' •u-stion is also some ' $s, eferred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD; and titt,,, WHEREAS, Lodg: fil; . p 'ticen e )o ea i.. : T .entieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, F • - •. tor'atta k�-me + ty' . ' i•i ri concerning the proposed rn amendment to the PUD's Ba .t .. :le Management P1%4 t c e being styled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier Coun + Te,_OS 674� i• --.- Cis.-..- WHEREAS, on or around May 17-2-0-F5, Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Harris Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4)(c) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and ail claims Lodge had against the County;and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. 1 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2346 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and Release, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound, Lodge and the County mutually agree to the following: 1. The County and Lodge agree to adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as "Whereas clauses"by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. The settlement documents will consist of the original PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 (Exhibit I), the amended PUD (Exhibit 2), the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan for the amended PUD (attached as Exhibit "B" to the amended PUD), a phasing diagram entitled "Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Exhi t i d a Pathway Depiction (Exhibit 4). This Agreement and Release -x sly states the at eppetab e deviations in development standards from the original r a. bse air expres ` - in his • greement and Release,the original PUD will control. :5 ' 1 I( F...., 3. The settle •t sha?b nt :` t u . _ : site development plans ("SDPs") that Lodge has surbeing approved'! ,c9 ty, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Co .s lL.as__th-4 v.ment standards set forth in the original PUD and as may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR5283 and AR5284. 4. The County will expedite the review of these three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. The existing environmental impact statement ("EIS") does not need to be amended unless the SDPs are revised to increase wetland impact beyond the impact currently permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five(5%)percent. 5. Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential 2 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2347 condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable workforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment. 6. Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, Lodge shall contribute the sum of$3 million to the County to fund Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements. No impact fee credits shall be given for payment of this sum. Lodge recognizes that the County may request additional contributions up to the proposed road impact fees due for 59 r it`to assist the County in funding the construction of the Vanderbilt P dge enhancem ts4'j o such additional contributions shall be required, however unt' o ty provid-s evi nc: that all parties have spent $5,500,000.00 on the Van•erb ran .. g: -• :f . An such sums paid over the initial $3 million shall re - ,:. i .a redi 4,g in this Agreement and Release, however, is intend:. -. or shall it restric i, . ci• the County's ability under applicable laws, ordinances or ru ,b 1, ' e fifty p-r F 0%) of all transportation impact rE CiVs- fees upon approval of the SDPs. These fun .S--s all be refunded to Lodge should Lodge be permanently prevented from commencing construction based upon actions by any governmental entity or any third party. County shall be entitled to retain these funds without any need for reimbursement upon the earlier of(1) Lodge's commencement of construction of the first tower, or(2) the exhaustion of time to file any third party challenge with respect to any matter concerned by this Agreement and the attachments hereto. 7. Lodge and the County agree that the Cocohatchee Bay PUD shall be exempted from the County's PUD sunsetting provisions within the LDC until the Effective 3 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth (115) of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or i{f ({}]�7�,+}'(�y+e, j ever discontinued or abandoned for any reason, then all of the G - ]iI ncluding wit�lh,t�t�tli itation the entire golf course development area, except f•r t •s4,parti_ alto :0 for the tw a (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green op-n s•ac- . '. ?I;I) • -le• 7t to he uses expressly allowed 1 in Paragraph 5.3 of the . • A. -. I I ' -e •- ',free • ,ire isions to these restrictive covenants will require a supe .. z 'ty vote of the B • Of' + y Commissioners. 9. To fully satisfy it ckli ion&.ta co t t idewalks along adjacent off-site 4TES public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway ten (10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006) in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2349 (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in Building Height, as defined in Paragraph 3.5 entitled "Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the amended PUD,and Footnote 2 thereto. 11. The maximum number of dwelling units to be constructed by Lodge shall not exceed 590 units. Of these, a maximum of 590 units may be multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However, two (2) units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as set forth in Section 4.4 in the amended PUD, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 12. What has been referre to� h,aye(}]1 d R-2 Parcels shall be replaced by a single R parcel as set forth in earsed PUD Maste ' $t),,, .ttached to the amended PUD. The development standards for he44rc'el are =•. t fort in able II of Paragraph 3.5 of the amended PUD (except. a 1Y le :, p e 1, E 4 i -a • Ay eement and Release). 13. If there are .•a h• c .1 _-s • Bil, a:l' anagement Plan required by federal or state agencies, • • her County PUb e d.+: t process shall be required. The County acknowledges that t ded.Bald • I4 . agement Plan is in compliance with the County regulations. Lodge shall e ex Cil,. ..---- from any County regulations that may be adopted in the future applicable to the Bald Eagle and the County shall defer to the state and federal regulatory permitting process relating to the Bald Eagle Management Plan and issues related thereto. Lodge, however, shall be required to notify the County of any such changes required by state or federal agencies, which will then require an administrative change by the County to any of the previously approved SDPs under review or that have been approved by the County. Any change to the construction sequencing shall be considered an insubstantial change to the SDP. 14. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit 2. 5 2/28/08 revision • OR: 4368 PG: 2350 15. Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees, insurers, sureties, agents, attorneys, and representatives of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord. No. 2000-88, the related Bald Eagle Management Plan or any amendment or proposed amendment to the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 or the Bald Eagle Management Plan through the date this Agreement and Release are approved and authorized by the Board for the Chairman's signa � n without limitation all Bert Harris Act iv claims and the claim assertedse No. 0505 ' release shall be immediately effective upon the County's a r of the-3 P 's in .cco dance with the terms and conditions set forth in para a. 3 0 's A e 1D t . • ' a e. e. 16. In the even • a t mid c . nge "`a t i r A y eement and Release, the of County and Lodge agree to cooperatively tostl t e•d Agreement and Release. In sers this regard, the County and Lodga each ski e parties to any such challenge FLE proceeding if one or the other of them is oed as a party in the first instance. The County and Lodge shall each bear their own costs and attorney's fees in any such proceeding. 17. If any third party challenge to this Agreement and Release should ever be successful, after exhaustion of all appeals or other requests for review or reconsideration or federal permit conditions prevent Lodge from being able to develop the project consistent with the amended PUD Master Plan then the County agrees to return all money provided by Lodge under this Agreement and Release upon sixty(60)days written notice from Lodge and to allow Lodge to retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. In addition, if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain 6 2/28/08 revision 011: 4368 PG: 2351 required federal permits for the SDPs as referenced in this document and is therefore unable to build this project (exclusive of any federal permits or approvals for docks), Lodge likewise will be entitled to a refund of all money provided under this Agreement and Release within sixty (60) days of written notice from Lodge and Lodge shall retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. 18. Nothing in this Agreement and Release or the settlement documents shall be construed or interpreted to confer any right to docks or any particular number of docks. 19. The Agreement and Release shall be binding upon Lodge's and the County's predecessors, successors, assigns, offi re d former employees, owners, present tN and former elected or appointea II insurers, prim .land representatives, who shall work together in good faith • ac oiiiiish tthe-inten . this A t4 ee ent and Release. 20. This Agrees en •. d ' •l • : 1�a _, -xe s b the laws of the State of Florida. C) -•.___ / .. t 21. This Agreem- •. d Release may b iART-n'-4 A my by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agre tbh . • Rel-. .e ..41\e -cuted with the same formalities \,. ; (ii as this Agreement and Release. This Agreemen and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. 22. The County and Lodge acknowledge that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision that my exist in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party either based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous language or that the language in question was intended to favor one party or the other. 7 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2352 23. The Effective Date of this Agreement and Release shall be the date upon which the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, executes this document. 24. The County and Lodge acknowledge and assume the risk that additional, different or contrary facts to the facts which they believe exist may now exist or may be discovered after this Agreement and Release has been entered into, and they agree that any such additional, different or contrary facts shall in no way limit, waive, affect or alter this Agreement and Release. The County affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the a r0- 4 t�zed by the PUD and this Agreement N and Release or the enforceabili . > s Agreement an. e. Lodge affirmatively states that it is not aware of an fa, s iat, otrld`�prolV lit the con traction of the project as authorized by the PUD d 1 e t �� 7 •r he enforceability of this Agreement and Release. f�. 25. In the event each of this Agr ` 6a elease, either party to this Agreement and Release may en &i .ermsr.in-t e j +(S tieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In this respect, the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REMAINING SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 8 2/28/08 revision OR; 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST:,: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHt'E,OROCK, CLERK COLLIER CO TY, F ORIDA • By: / _.. afithafif By: 1% tedillabbas A K'tp ch1. !-puty lerk TOM HENNING,CHAIRM signature Dari, WIT t S ES; " LI 3 � Signed Name 4 1G/in/Oh Ae0e4Phic Print-s Name Si ai/4 Name BOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC \ 4. �41.J Atli ITS: Printed Name Ape oved as to form r and e1P 41114 C't A .4 13e i A. KI ow 0 Coin y Atto -y 9 2/28/08 revision RECEIVED- JUL 3 2017 To: (;)/) Jill/ :/�A11�? /" A),../)/ f i j By: From: Donna Reed Caron Date: July 2, 2017 Re: Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and PUD In a thinly veiled attempt to justify actions antithetical to good planning, staff issued a memorandum dated April 28, 2017 trying to explain the application of development standards for the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. The staff approval letter spends a great deal of time trying to clarify their actions and quoting the "clear language" of Florida Statutes. Critical to the discussion currently being brought forward by citizens is that staff is not following the Settlement Agreement and all of it's component parts in the reviewing process. The following is attempt to detail submitted changes in both clear language and unambiguous facts. Building One is 50 feet wider than shown on the original SDPs. The apparent intent is to make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of another whole building to the plan and further exacerbating the building separation issue. Clear and unambiguous. The developer has added twelve guest suites as accessory units. However, the PUD lists guest suites and cabanas as permitted uses and they are to be counted as part of the total number of residential units: 590. Four 20 story buildings each with 120 units equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Plus twelve guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So as of this date, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of units allowed. Clear and unambiguous. Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top structures such as the pool, community meeting room, and fitness center. According to the PUD, building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the upper most finished ceiling elevation of the roof structure. Also County Land Development Code staff and Zoning & Land Development staff issued an official clarification on the issue of roof-top accessory structures: SC 2004-05, "... the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased height, and refers to unenclosed, unroofed, and un-air conditioned space for recreational use." Clear and unambiguous. A housing unit (a habitable structure) has been added to the garage level, conflicting further with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. Clear and unambiguous. The plans that exist at the County are inconsistent with those submitted to South Florida Water Management- - - preventing any factual analysis to be conducted. For example the SFWMD plans show the addition of two four-plex units, further exceeding the allowed unit count. Nothing clear or unambiguous about this. Building separations are less than code minimums of 1/2 the sum of the building heights, and less than the already reduced and adjusted separations (as per PUD footnote #3) shown on the SDPs attached to the PUD and Settlement Agreement. To quote from the CCPC review that was accepted and approved by Board action, "However, as a result of language in the PUD, the CCPC recommends reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. As an alternative to the reduction in separation, greater distances could be provided by moving alternating towers closer to Vanderbilt Drive." Those separations are as follows: building 1 to 2, 153 feet; building 2 to 3, 126 feet; building 3 to 4, 127 feet; building 4 to 5, 341 feet. The Settlement Agreement, PUD, Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission, and three SDPs reviewed and approved by staff were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 22, 2008. This action was taken in total as part of the Summary Agenda. Again, The Board approved all documents as presented without objection from the County Attorney, County Manager, county staff, the petitioner, the petitioners agent or citizens. Clear and unambiguous. Staff cites several examples of supposed historical application of the administrative reduction of building separations. However, only one of the examples represents a high rise tower project and it is a side yard set back not a building separation situation. In this instance, staffs action was understandable since the Waterpark Place building is not next to another high rise but rather a four lane tree lined parking area leading to a tram to Pelican Bay beach. There are no past projects analogous to the Cocohatchee/Kalea Bay project. Clear and unambiguous. Besides the clear and unambiguous language of Florida statutes being an important tenet, ignoring any portion of an ordinance or law or reducing the language to an absurdity is equally important. Staffs interpretation that there is no limit to reducing building separations because of clauses such as 'footnote #3', is not a credible interpretation. Additionally, staff cannot ignore the fact that the CCPC recommendation was included with the PUD, Settlement Agreement and Bald Eagle Management Plan on the Summary Agenda and was approved by The Board on April 22, 2008. The citizens of Collier County harbor serious concerns that must be addressed in a timely fashion. Upholding the Settlement in it's entirety is not only reasonable and proper, but critical to the community's continued trust in the rule of law, our ordinances, the sanctity of contracts and settlements, and of course to the integrity of and respect for our system of county governance and the people elected and appointed to assure equal treatment for all. Thank you. Donna Reed Caron 790 Wiggins Bay Drive Naples, FL. 34110 I �{ c--t` 239-514-2780 /� 239-280-6857 / RECETVED- APR 2 0 2017 By: My name is Diane Rupnow and I live in the Glen Eden Communi Y. In 2000 the Cocohatchee Bay PUD was approved. That PUD contained a development standards chart and footnote that our attorney attached to his February 7th letter to YOU and I gave to commissioners again last Tuesday. Carl Stenddahl just read the footnote a few minutes ago. What was NOT in the PUD was an explanation of how that footnote could and would be interpreted by County staff. It appears that the County is misinterpreting the footnote to allow this developer to get away with drastically reducing separation between buildings. At the February 25, 2008 meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, Commissioner Caron said, "It absolutely defies credulity on the part of both staff and the petitioner that that asterisk in the development standards table means that 251-foot buildings can essentially be built with zero lot lines." My sentiments exactly! Question: Are ALL developers privy to this slight of hand to get their buildings closer together or is this interpretation of this footnote reserved for those with special privilege? IF this footnote has been used in Collier County at least once before so a precedent IS in place, then I think the question becomes, were good planning standards used then to arrive at that decision? This footnote caused big controversy at the January 11 , 2008 Planning Commission meeting where several commissioners argued that this was not GOOD PLANNING. Our County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow referred to its interpretation as absurd and said, "The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time." Regarding the inclusion of the chart and footnote on the PUD approved in 2000, I have this to say. . . If the Planning Commissioner with a degree in Planning and Architecture has to get out a scale to determine that the building separations in the drawings did not meet the minimum required distances, then Rich Yovanovich's argument that these dimensions were clearly shown to neighbors during the PUD review process does not ring true. I contend that building separations of 153' 126'; 127'; and 341 ' were sneakily included and approved in the SDPs in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement On the County Commissioners' website, it lists your "Guiding Principles" or values. The first two are similar—"Honesty and Integrity". Since those traits are important to you I submit the only depiction of the completed Kalea Bay project to be found on their website. It shows potential condo buyers and neighbors of Kalea Bay 5 tall skinny towers about as far apart as they are tall. This depiction is a lie. In reality those towers will be TALLER, WIIDER, and MUCH CLOSER TOGETHER. We incorporated the accurate dimensions of the proposed Kalea Bay project and came up with this more realistic depiction showing towers 310' wide and 200' tall with currently proposed distances of 109'; 165'; 100' and 100' between the 5 buildings. So, this is a more truthful depiction of what the completed Kalea Bay project would look like. You can see the impact this massive wall of towers has on the skyline, shading the road and surrounding neighborhoods, blocking access to light and views. While researching this issue, I have been given an answer that was not truthful and had roadblocks set up by County staff. If there is nothing to hide, then truth and transparency should be granted to citizens like me seeking answers to valid questions. These decisions by administrative planning staff without BCC approval VIOLATED the public trust, violated the Settlement Agreement and should be investigated and discussed in a public forum. The final "Guiding Principle" or Value listed on your website is "SELF CORRECTING". I take that to mean that you want to make the best decisions possible for your constituents, the citizens of Collier County, so IF it is perceived that a mistake has been made, you are willing to investigate and reevaluate a decision and make "right a wrong." We hope you do. Thank you! Diane Rupnow rupnowdi nmail.com 402 580-1545 , .),'. : 41 4 ,4. , * . :4:., * ';'' ' '2—.1 .. ' j Ilk t ' [t/ kk 0\ • ,' III (--1 , , r, ti. ' 1 ti ZD , i. F..1 1)m0-4 A m 3r f, !;,:.,:a1/4N4 \ /*\j ( ) 4 , 3/40;1, : i • 4 + ,' f , I I s C fp*k, o r. J l RN1 . c( ' I N Att.' taPt U\ 7� id, Y s it , O , d % " r ` if if .' A 0m 0H M- i.-Im `# >i' r Vi -i t{ • ght 4 ki (11 mm*0-I 4° '''''\. t'llito./::. *. . . ' *It i 1 4� ! i 1 J 1C) n coi. \ '-'' , .. ,1,.„4., 1, : , I i. ti,, : . ' ' '° N 3 a CD C CD ® Al 0 -{ m a N O. f o CCD . -1 m a p CD 1 ° 5. 3 r. a 0- .... a N -c?; 1 -I 7. rk a 0 11a a-C F .. i,_. .. . rn v. ,_, .. , ...- ...• (� N I 0 N lirO W •46' !1� -111::::.. N If V O 17O D A N T ''''' (1-)c) tn 5' NV' II 1 OD 4a aTa A a N, a 0) .-• w . .. ,A 1'I F___, O # ' 1 o I (i ae If. f-, t ' ' s f A 1 'fl 1 i k .D A q i i,, (V .,. 4:'3.0,, =. . ; \� , \ 2 . k ƒ § 0. 2,..\\,......:........_ to ,c_." E. l \ I U71 i P F ,... fk \� �( _ \© } „..... --- I'1 \I _p Iiiii: i-•- II e , yl . • 2 ƒ) ' + , . \ II _.... ] „..;--..., ,....,.: , . ..:,..,.., .. . ° ,.... ,, § .8 \ , . } a > X . , . ` «\ » /' } - d ! � | P. \ k i ! \ o 9 # f\ ; i v } }\ <. \} \ \ _ � . Additional Facts For Commissioners Mark Strain, chair of the Planning Commission met with us and said he would research our concerns and find answers to our questions. Then 2 days later he informed us that he could have no further involvement in this matter because it might become a conflict of interest for him down the road and yet he continued to take actions regarding this matter by having breakfast with Commissioner McDaniel the Friday BEFORE we were scheduled to meet with that Commissioner. Seems he told Commissioner McDaniel that there had been a precedent set for County staff's interpretation of that footnote accompanying the building standards chart in the PUD and so the Kalea Bay project was a done deal. On March 30, 2017, we asked for public records that would document the precedent disclosed to Commissioner McDaniel as well as any other instances in Collier County in which the footnote accompanying the building standards chart had been interpreted to mean that building separation could be infinitely administratively reduced by County "staff" if skewed buildings had common architectural theme. We have received no public records yet. Does County "staff" have autonomous authority and unlimited discretion to interpret a footnote accompanying the standards chart to mean that this developer does not have to abide by the formula for determining minimum building separation as long as the buildings have common architectural theme and are skewed? Just so you know, plans the developer submitted to the SFWMD do not match the plans which the County sent us when awe sked for the most current Golf Course plans. Shouldn't plans submitted to the County and SFWMD match exactly in reference to land usage? Paragraph 15 of the Settlement Agreement states that "Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorney's fees or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord. No. 200-88 . . . . Does Paragraph 15 mean that the developer can't sue the County? Why should we have to spend over $2,000 to file an Administrative Appeal to get the Commissioners to review something they should be reviewing since they are bound to uphold the terms of the Settlement Agreement? Why should we spend $925 in notification fees to notify ourselves? Why should we have to file an Administrative Appeal and put ourselves in judicial jeopardy when our purpose is to provide County Commissioners with information they should have received from their own staff? If the County can't be sued by this developer, perhaps the County should make decisions that reign in this developer's greed, protect our Naples "sense of place" and uphold the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Paragraph 25 states, "In this respect, the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release. That Case No. shows that it is still pending. 9 years later. According to the Bert Harris Statute 70, both the County and the developer should have done that so that the 20th Judicial Count could protect the public interest. We'd like to see the public interest protected. The terms of the Settlement Agreement have not been upheld and it is up to the Collier County Commissioners to uphold them. How can you do that if you are not informed by County staff? The Commissioners were circumvented in 2008 when they were not provided with clear information about the controversy involving the interpretation of the footnote. They are still being circumvented and deprived of information regarding the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. This is not the first time that these developers have changed plans in their favor. We, the citizens, will suffer the consequences and experience the ruination of our beautiful view—forever. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 gas £9ct, , 9'9 q476i4-Nti, 1/4":1A APR 3 2017 AAA/ 6rne4111-440-0-iteA,14-4, - •� /d aur44,e- ,a, .c !or' 190td-i 44=4'radt,e ie441-Z14- mad A 241A, BGG ttz2 * ,tre, 6i2144- pill ,14- 4-45ilve e/U`c, /4 _ , . i Axil Ad4 tile, • zynetia, k1.40-<0. / 4118- /146i64*- ' C' 1-)14(4t0r11-d/ U/& et641-r Atial , co-nan.,2,4.- ,/,,, / O de /da • , 4„-dz ,44-eade-t- 64Attd-- , , It I C4944444-ph, -114 ti 97-10-ve- CLuAL I I d4 A"'6`114)4t c&J-ivt a'Rotf/A4 / - t/41,0v77 ./"7-1 dt-e .0141te-d / -tiAtl 66 ;-tAilajt- r-t-t () a4d4:iCion7nuLu htitkWhiliti /t44frit'4"'a4ed ft- fecictipc. f-s- ,40-rede4c, RALF BROOKES, ATTORNEY Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Lazy February 7,2017 Collier County do Collier County Attorney In Re: Cocohatchee Bav/Kalea Bay Development Issues Dear Collier County I represent a number of adjacent property owners and residents who have the following objections and concerns regarding the above referenced development: 1. The setback between the first building and proposed second building at Kalea Bay does not meet the minimum building setback of 1/2 the buildings sum height(i.e.,the total building heights when added together)which is at least 200' See,Table 3.5 in 4368 OR.Book p .2375,and 4368 OR.Book pp.2415-2416,and instead would provide less than 100 ft. in building separation. a. An administrative deviation should not be used to drastically and substantially reduce the setback between buildings by more than 100' and more than 1/2 the required setback. b. It is unreasonable to grant an administrative deviation of more than 100 feet and more than '/2 the required setback without another public hearing to provide an opportunity for adjoining and nearby property owners to be heard regarding this substantial deviation. c. The similar architectural design of the 2 buildings does not alleviate the reduction the views by over 100' through the buildings that would impact the view of adjoining and neighboring residents(sometime colloquially referred to as the"condo canyons"effect). d. The calculation of building height sum for the setback is even greater than 400'because there is a habitable dwelling unit located on 2nd Floor Garage(See,Building Permit Plans depicting MANAGER's QUARTERS on the 2id Floor Garage). This garage floor containing the managers dwelling unit should have been included in the building height calculation for the purposes of calculating building height sum for building setbacks,-or the manager's quarters should be removed from the building plans. 2. We are also concerned that the developer not miss,and that the County monitor and be aware of, the rapidly approaching,upcoming requirements contained in the Settlement Agreement: a. Of particular concern is the approaching deadline required by paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement for recording Restrictive Covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of the golf course parcel before or at the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the 1'`bldg. Kalea Bay Tower 1,which is approaching Certificate of Occupancy in mid-2017 b. Similarly,Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement requires a 10-ft sidewalk be completed before,at or upon C.O. in 2017. We are referring these objections to the County for review and any necessary actions. Best regards, /s/Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral,Fl 33904 Phone(239)910-5464;fax(866)341-6086 Ralfl3rookes@gmail.com Attachments Each building is 200+' Sum of Building Height=400+' Building Setback is 200+' See OR Book 4368 Page 2375 and 2415(attached) s Ct ::CA LA a /:. ••' L a1 L C 4 O 13 00 0 3 cv‘ ..fzi .2f . 1 pp Q M- 3j oN QCa v CU 12, u cl.. ‘1")* —1 = tn4-0c 2 a `° U N C Y 3 4' lg a G) - •Tr."-71 M L +- 411 -ts vl co ..-, u E t ', c 4 "i c a, +-1 Oh d co L CO + V (Y� V) C id o a CO ' C P T tea L O o .r E o �§ L N C J .ZT . \04.) A113 i' W 3 OR: 4368 PG: 2375 COCOHATCHSB BAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR }� p��� �}�. • TABLE I D ELOPMEN�STANDARDS "It!~ R2 RIGH-RISE MULTI-FAMILY Matti-Family Darnley 1Hlaimnm Let Area N/A 1 Aae _. Minimum Lot Width N/A WA Freed Yard-Internal Road •r , 03 BH not las 03 BH not las than 2S feet than 25 fen Arse Yard-Accessary Bhlg. / 0.5 BH not less 0.5 BH oot lest lade Parkins Structu a than 25 feet than 25 feet Rant Yard-Vanderbilt Drive BH WA Fried Yard-Aeaorry Bldg, SO 1 WA Side Yard 03 BH 15 • { Rear Yard 0.5 BH 15 Rear Yard Aeeewory`/��NICY• ' V( S __y 10 lhsd �nBldg He d j 20 •. - 35 1 /L' height. ..•f_ s2 Distance Between - -I 'r''''-'7 ._ . 0.3 SB •3 03 BH not leu lbw 15 feet P Flier Area ltb.. 1 .i 1200 SF ad (5 U } l akdiem=g 14 Shalt be the verticadiem= b habitable tautest floor armies to din uppn+o+rcel isg ekvation o $ (Seat d la)dbra Howdy *of two adjecant baddirs j •• ddasesoiag masa moveimmsts Al d.waracs are i fat eats atkerwie soma\T:.j i.' C tI�/ •I Feet yards a ))be sewed r follows: `=l A. If tete moat is served by a public right•of-way.setback Is aware est hon dee adjacentsight-of-way lie. B. If die pros.Is amid by a private toed.sorbs&is atresmed from the beds daub(if curbed)or editor pavvw of the carted). '2 $wilding be for the sou*papery flee adjacent to Arbor Tsars ie the'RI"sect shall be IS stories fora maximum height of ISO feet. *3Wh er,the masksi a comma aaaitacaral thecae ate angled.stewed ar offset frac are mother.aad weds sty teat pends.tr one be_Aniei tadve y:pieced. . 1 3.3 .../.. - . OR: 4368 PC. 2415 r 4 i , • 2. Reaeatiooal uses such as, but not limited to, clubhouse, fitness ceases., health spa,tillage courts,swimming pools or similar recreational uses. 3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in natme with the foregoing uses and which the Pluming Services Department Director determines to • be compatible in the 3C:44.1=-124141:17 Districts. • • 3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1 A. Table I a sots forth the development stades* for land uses within the "R" , Residentiel Districts. B. Standards for plating, landscaping, sips and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD,are to be in accordance with Collier County Land Developnent Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated,required yards, heights,aid floor area standards apply to principal structures. 'R C. C. Off-street • ;. 1 • ;io • • • ,. , . - shill be accessed by perking aisles or dri4,1M -1. are separate • • • , • • which serve more than one development. ww-- spice area of not .- ten feet (10) in width as measured • ., . -;1 -,_ -.•t_ • . +.;. -I - .- •I t sepKate any patios aide •or • • . iirl.._ 41404 )1611116+7 . . -. 011141P.41064111111,010~1110111Iiii . • . 11144 -..riiii.. Tamar 1 . i• ONIUmiliall.1110.1111100/4punifirar . lir 1 •• • Taga '''11S6.1 's . " ' .I AV liar : ' . ' ' ' • ''s ' ' " ' MEM - mow p i 4 I I - DEVILOPMDTT STANDARDS MP maw =Mat ; inGe-ang 1110.111M111.131 ziag fOlIer Meld-Fri,Direllhapro i11111111aa i alliam. Let Ares WA 44iare lAsm lillima Let WU* WA WA kVA Mae Toed-Mena Reed at 031)1 not less 0.1 Alipeselese 1 ajlaaajoL _ *ea 23 feet _ dowdrodeet doe 25 jot ", Wrest Yard-Ammar 7 BUS- 0.5 BH=am 411.11ilaselese (algimies. bduillimairlDBLIPIniclars dma 25 kee ilmwaidese Amato heat Yard-Vamderbit Drive BH WA tvA host Yard-Acesswirry Bldg. 50 ' WA Si , ,Ade Yard 46 0.5 1311 1 , liMmosal•MILLMMEMEN•1 Rear Yard Madrid 033)1 15 . law Turd ACCIIIIWI 40 lit 3.2 (— 2/28/08 revision ...... _ _ _ OR: 4368 PG: 2416 -. Mg Rabic " m suds for a.ssatss Si 31 A hi*43013 fit 'Mum NW=Pricked cked lie.t4...s as sail a4111114okesi as jaimikar ilmoisrfi.1 lia23seat . now Aees life. (reit) INC,SF 4200411 =ALM 111:(itis k iMldss Mitt ail be tie veaid&New.sseted foe abs ear Obibtlls IOW Sear dsvides ee Os sppsrsst ertiabed ate*tiwrlee of re aspen I Mai: (Stas of Wilt Adehgalk isad MI* d tiro agleamWags iceit pstspeus of daieriits slim* ! i Al diele.an we is fret miss albmri.e saved •1 Rem pude Ai be msssd s Bows: A. Mlle paned IS cered by a public rir 1 o(wsy.Mock is e.ssstsd foe the edjenet>3glt-sAvy Boa. I. NAB prod is wrwd by a privies sad.astber>ti is aromed bas Os beef of asrb(Y cubed)or d/e of p.vsest(if not embed). '2 Renins f bsi/Ec tit Itis serf peopsety lies ebsast to Artier Thee is the It+"evict IMO be jj 44 mods ice a s.odsees Willi el in 140 het *3 wrbne baileewwb a aoseo. R C• r. cast fee see Rawi Rawer.wed veils cot or mai toea..eber.Ibesebeebs- - r- ' r / )..to.--.., ----: . . r j o_ r•-:1-'E-C.e .° ir ,0 : T, (:). „ TiiE C IRL _____ 3.3 ' 1128/06 revision 2 R j ! I .1 , !11 , _ !, 1 1 . ' vcaou 5dveiat b!t5, .Y N a Iitt3l I ] at l s 11 10 # hill 1= t SWt11NIWOdNO� V �—2� ! ii.isO aN : ;il;: : #.:, id ,:; s=,,.s 1 €Ih�, , Avg V31Y)I { . i ! I { y k. -- ® '������. ='=-_ = /fi , , • r; r�a�j t .+-� ,. , ® re, .f, „{' >J IIIE; J &_ -_ _ _.__ T�� 'ter ' 3 to f:III , ---� - � ~— 0 { ® `���� Zop ;;/„hili,, 1D. I' , ,r 4::\ ,i , J� T f--- II �� I I E fl j • .-� 1 t - o ` B © jY- .® %//////don, %///////. r --' to cr, Y • 0 i v► i f i i .0 rzz/ ,e„ 6,..-,SevticAvireil t:i'...-E--?.. '_ L.,,,,,„„., ,„,,,,,, [. _ , .. i , --MN _ j --11- ) `C U �� Leta: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 » rik 124.01 CLIVI TO TDI MUD UCO.DID in tie OFFICIAL IICO1DI of COLLIJD camT, FL COFIII 17.01 'MIMICS 4TI FLOOI Si/II/2115 at 10:4611 D$I®T I. URI, CLIDI UT 1241 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this"k{l‘day of L,r,e._., , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle i ;,;. •- and WHEREAS, the PUD it•/ on is also som s. eferred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD;and /7 'Ir...--_,,, \------ 1 WHEREAS, Lodg4 fil_. . •• tinn o -'. o :•:%1•74e T entieth Judicial Circuit in 4i•Aal '1 .and for Collier County, . atta_ ' e -• ty'–•v i iim concerning the proposed amendment to the PUD's BI1? le Management P1 tale being styled Lodge Abbott / Associates. LLC v. Collier Coun (71440.3:15_,96 .7-E4)e\` �€ CIR WHEREAS, on or around May 1, 2 , Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Harris Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.;and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4Xc) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County;and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. ----_.— I 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. " As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy,Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses )(.7 described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or • a ; ; T ever discontinued or abandoned for • A? any reason, then all of the r 'rt including wi I i t • itation the entire golf course development area, except fi tl •. ,o , :1 • •A for tit. tw (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green opn �•0y +�t .1�.T to uses expressly allowed in Para h 5.3 of the .'411-.0 s ' e. • isions to these restrictive covenants will require a sup : 'ty vote of the B "`t ,f Commissioners. 't_( ti 9. To fully satisfy i you!• •+ • :� • idewalks along adjacent off-site -1TE public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway en (10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006)in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST:‘;'; , BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGIc•E, ROCK ,CL=ERK COLLIER C 6 TY,F ORIDA r AR By:�I !. , Ir/l_, By: _ 1 i i � U tO Chi 1. I ••uty lerk TOM I G,C • I' • Signature cm tit,.. WI SES;A j _iiii2._ 04v7- Signed Name 4);CdtiVrA 7- At0e4WYck Print:. Name I42......4-''.."- - Si_,i {.s a :Name ' h :BOTT ASSOCIATES,LLC 4u • Mt J .2ini)0 (". 4.0V40/ -d` j ITS: i t ,.- c Printed Name / / /1 {:- -\-------J---, 1 1 \---'T -- Ap• •ved as to form ( ��T(r t j ,77 1 ander, • ." • 1;,1i� ��jlJ� r� ,j, L ? ' N,, ..,..3, � -.if 1114 ..'j Je • ., A. KI �A,ow ,�� `1'v Co Atto j•y /‹ (`' i \((?1 �J% \•!/fE C i� 9 2/28/08 revision GoodnerAngela From: Kmggal <kmggal@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday,July 11, 2017 12:08 PM To: SolisAndy; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDaniel Bill Cc: kmggal@aol.com Subject: Kales Bay issues I have been on vacation with my family but thought it important to get to the commissioner meeting today and have my say. I was scheduled on Spirit Airline flight 943 from Atlantic City NJ (ACY) to Fort Myers (RSW) on July 10th, 2017. I was at the airport and it was delayed again and again. We finally got on the plane around 8:00 p.m. We were then asked to deplane because the flight was cancelled. (There were no available flights today to get me there in time.) The main criteria I used when buying my home in Naples was that I wanted to be West of Rt. 41 and have a southwest view of the beautiful Naples sunsets. It looks to me I will lose my view of the beautiful Naples sunsets if the Kalea Bay buildings are approved with major changes proposed disregarding the PUD Agreement entered into in 2008, and without any knowledge of or any input from the surrounding communities or I believe the Collier County Commissioners. I feel this developer makes agreements with communities without ever thinking they will have to keep their part of the bargain. The PUD Agreement entered into in 2008 gave this developer well over$30 million worth of extra units of condos in exchange for leaving the property adjacent to me as a golf course or preserve in perpetuity. Then in 2014 they tried to have this PUD agreement opened up to build houses on this property. They already got several extra floors and added condo units that they would be selling each for millions of dollars and were trying to renege on their end of the deal. Now they want to build a wall of concrete blocking my view by building these high rise buildings 50 feet wider and many feet closer together which is the equivalent of the size of adding a another high rise building. The PUD Agreement entered into in 2008 did not account for any of these changes and the surrounding communities were never informed. I also believe the commissioners were not made aware of any of these changes. I am asking each of you to please take into consideration what we have given up to this developer and what he has promised and seems not to keep his end of the bargain. Kathleen Gallagher 849 Carrick Bend Cir. #201 Naples, Fl 34110 1 GoodnerAngela From: Danielle Carry <danielle.carry@stuartbuildingproducts.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:49 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny;williammcdanialjr@colliergov.net; FilsonSue Cc: Stacy mower Subject: Kalea Bay Tower Project Importance: High July 11, 2017 Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 RE: Kalea Bay Project To the Collier County Board of Commissioners', My name is Stacy Mower-Upperman and I am writing in respect to The Kalea Bay Project. I have just learned that there is opposition to the future Towers at Kalea. It would be a terrible mistake to discontinue this project. Between the jobs that have been created and the unparalleled product that has been produced,the value it will bring Naples and the surrounding areas is incomparable. We have visitors and home buyers from all over the world looking at our city now and they are looking to not only purchase a home or second home, but everything that the Kalea Bay project entails. Stuart Building Products, LLC supplied all the rebar and building materials to Tower One. My company is dependent on projects like this one to take care of our families and staff. Hundreds of people depend on projects like this,one that is capable of securing wages for several years and increasing revenue throughout the city. I urge you to consider all that will be effected by your decisions and allow the project to continue. Respectfully, Stacy Mower-Upperman Stuart Building Products, LLC Best Regards, Danielle Carry Stuart Building Products 1341 NW 15th Street Pompano Beach, FL 33069 954-978-8900 office 954-978-8925 fax 1 GoodnerAngela From: Karen Laureano <KLaureano@allenconcrete.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:26 AM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Cc: Chris Allen; Susie Allen; Katie Wallace Subject: Kalea Bay Project Attachments: Kalea Bay.pdf Gentlemen and ladies: Please see attached letter from Mr.Allen in reference to the Kalea Bay project. Thank you, CONCRETE & MASONRY INC. Karen Laureano 6301 Shirley Street Naples, FL 34109 239.566.1661 Ext. 216 239.254.8515 Fax klaureanoallenconcrete.com www.allenconcrete.com 1 de/kW CONCRETE & MASONRY, INC. July 11,2017 Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples,FL 34112 Re: Kalea Bay Tower Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: This letter comes to you from a concerned contractor that has operated in Naples for over thirty years. It was with great excitement that we prepared for the Kalea Bay project post a recession during which many construction contractors,including Allen Concrete,had to lay off thousands of employees. When we were awarded the concrete portion of the Kalea Bay project,we hired an able workforce to undertake it. We anticipated that the project duration would be approximately seven years. The project consists of five towers,clubhouse facilities, guest cottages,maintenance building, tennis courts and golf course. theremaining We are under notice that there iso opposition to the completion of ema PP Pg towers. When construction of tower#2 was delayed,we had to lay off several employees and reduce the hours of several others. We have tried to hold-on,but if this project does not move forward or is delayed any more, we will be forced to lay-off more employees and/or cut more hours. These employees are the same ones that fuel our local economy with their spending. Projects such as Kalea Bay attract both seasonal and permanent residents who also contract miscellaneous local trades i.e. air conditioning contractors, painters, Allen Page 1 of 2 6301 SHIRLEY STREET • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 • OFFICE(239)566-1661 • FAX(239) 566-8515 designers,and who patron local restaurants,hair and nail salons,car dealerships and so on. Since Naples is such a cyclical area, it needs sufficient attractive housing to compete with other cities. We have beautiful communities, but not many as grand as Kalea Bay. We hope you take into consideration all of these things and not simply the complaints of a few unit owners as you make your decision. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Chris Allen Cc: Bill McDaniel Penny Taylor Burt Saunders Donna Fiala Andy Solis • Allen Page 2 of 2 GoodnerAngela From: Nancy Farnsworth <nancy@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 3:38 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Attachments: 20170710151854.pdf Dear Commissioners: Please find attached signatures from 22 of our staff who work construction in Collier County and many who live in the county. Several have worked directly on the Kalea Bay project and are scheduled to work on the upcoming building 2. If the Kalea Bay Project is halted or delayed due to the protesters against this already approved building,we will have to lay people off. Please stand strong against those few part time residents who are against this project. .lI ram.* Nancy P.Farnsworth Vice President Acres&Son Plumbing, Inc. Serca Management, LLC 239-597-5031 239-597-3740 fax 1 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala©colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders©colliergov.net PennyTaylor©colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(cr�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincer y, Signature nn Print Name 2 76 7Y Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunderscolliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDanielAcolliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincere TN). )Lc - 1N----- Signature Print Name 510 oTk.Th 5fi ; Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaundersAcolliergov.net PennvTaylorc colliergov.net BillMcDaniel( colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature Print Name z78/ '_� �`� - '� Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala aAcolliergov.net AndySolisa,colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor(p�colliergov.net BillMcDanielAcolliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Ito J Orr Signaf e Print Name 1(56 7- PSP CA, Address (P Jt; SPK-/P69PL Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolisAcolliergov.net BurtSaunders( colliergov.net PennyTaylor(a colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, 61,,, ,,,,,---,L (& ,t- z. Signature(;/-11 / ( at!1 efc;c /(-c /, erii C&41 Print Name ( 76( </SAS 54v-c-e rt Address /1y/mss Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliemov.net AndySolis@collieraov.net BurtSaunders( colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(&colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Lt IZcikm("j1— Signature Print Name Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialana colliergov.net AndySoliscolliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor(c�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(p�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Ihonas 1-de5- Signature 71441Y/a9 /-7k/e5" Print Name Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov.net AndySolis(c colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor( colliergov.net BillMcDanielAcolliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against he opposition who are do not want this project built. in ft l y AaidulidtgiAAI Signat re kit) FikAS Chia y U-71-6 Print Name 2081 kLA,v \\1 k'i Ala Address e0(71 ;. ek_ ' rwk p ., SSI I s H Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov.net AndvSoliscolliergov.net BurtSaunders a(7,colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@c011iergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signat e i Icc�,�a5 Print Name t3oy 41lervt. ���Q (+ i r Address l eLvt 4er e S I `33 e:3 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@,colliergov.net PennyTaylorcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel( colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature n.e,c1,1 Print Name )0 51- Address Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis a(�colliergov.net BurtSaunderscolliergov.net PennyTaylorCa�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sin - -ly, illC)11-•,,,-)W Sign- re Print Name fl I M w. Av E Address )9LO� --5 ) 4 -1(4r Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolis a(�colliergov.net BurtSaunderscolliergov.net PennyTaylor agcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel(c�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincere ifississ ...- Signature Signature Print Name 40 30 -P A / 517 Address ,100 I C' I rr f' -i/Zt Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaCc�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�colliergov.net PennyTaylor a(�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. SinA0311r —� ii:nature �— tek Print Name /D 30 Address S -; rc r 3/35 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature c c- Qr. A. C Print Name /0 e 7 {—��- t J �rrc,c e Zr- Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala©colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDanielAcolliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, &,\? 1-0 tcyftt),41 , Si. - -i 1 .4 ,4;VI A► 'fie 2-6) 2,"-i * J SQJ ifess fL. Z4/( Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialagr�colliergov.net AndySolisCc�colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor@.colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Since A iv • n.. ure I r i • ---1-51-0SbC ) Prin 1 ame 43 6 five. 5-1f, Addres� 1tt-- �,„ y4_ //� Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaCa�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunderscolliergov.net Pen nyTaylor(a�col liergov.net BillMcDaniel(�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Si cerely, i natr e Anic)6\ Print Name Ltdy+cAres trt;4__ 3 `� , Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov.net AndySolisc colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a,colliergov.net PennyTaylorAcolliergov.net BilIMcDanielAcolliergov.net i RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected i the already •-rmitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be bui !. Please stand firr against the opposition who are do not want this project built. ,'•e)•ely, 0 N 0 it0 , i •Ic z>/ t-b naturen 4A1, Ne le 74 .40 r Tint Name /9A 4dres /Z41 el(--" /A1/1(rd 7i1 ()Ilk' 41JJZ Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylorcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel c(Dcolliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, // f ✓ t4,/ P. JJ/ `/i � r../ Signature (re) 711-2_p 'Z✓l Zofc"Z� Print Name 1/413 v w1J-}srLe Cot! cls Z Z Address it/gP) 6s Fr-D 3JJ/J3 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala©colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders a(�colliergov.net PennyTaylorQcolliergov.net BillMcDanielCcr�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sinc ely, / rhir Signature Pedro Mc)4c Iv o Print Name tbIok c)ccvay 1-101\ou L. Vn Address 1Jc (( tC �j(if) i Y\c,5 �-L- Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�col liergov.net PennyTaylorCa�col liergov•net BilIMcDanielCc�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Si cerely,., r Sig► •re V 12-1" ii- ( \� 0 � �` \ V 1 Print Name �! `' C 5 1,Q..� 2.� A dr s OfTLEI � , ' 31i / 6 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolis(c�colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor(a�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature `5f-C ( Print Name / 1 c ar Address GoodnerAngela From: Frank Halas <fhalas@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday,July 9, 2017 8:11 AM To: SolisAndy Subject: Petit Letter. Attachments: 2007 9_21 Att. Letter Bldg Separation.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow Up Flag Status: Flagged COMMISSIONER SOL/S, / WASC�/VEN THIS LETTER WRITTEN BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY MIKE PETT/T, BEFORE HE LEFT FOR PRIVATE PRACTICE. DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2007! THIS COULD BE THE "SMOKING'L UN" THAT THE SETBACKS AND DISTANCES BL WEEN BUILDING'S WERE TO BE ADDRESSED BY COUNTY STAFF AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO CLOSING' THIS LAWSUIT! / WAS LEAD TO BELIEVE THIS ALL WAS BE/n/Ci TAKEN CARE OF BY STAFF AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PRIOR TO THE APRIL 2z 23, 2008 SCC MEET/NC,. FRANK HALAS From: Brad Schiffer AIA [mailto:brad@TAXIS-usa.com] Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2017 1:33 PM To: FHalas@comcast.net Subject: Petit Letter. As discussed. Brad Schiffer AIA 239.254.0285 0 Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 • `pt LIF • .` • COLLIER COUNTY DAVID C.WEIGEL O[1 y� COWER COUNTY ATTORNEY 3301 East Tamiami Trail,8s'Floor Heidi F.Ashton Naples,FL 34112 Jennifer A.Belpedio Telephone: (239)774-8400 Ellen T.Chadwell Facsimile: (239)774-0225 Colleen M.Greene email: davidweigeI@colliergov-net Jacqueline Williams Hubbard Jeffrey A.Klatzkow William E.Mountford Thomas C.Palmer Michael W.Pettit September 21,2007 Marjorie M.Student-Stirling Scott R.Teach Via email mcooper@;ones-foster.com,rvovanovich@ncilaw.com Jeff E.Wright and regular U.S.mail Robert N.Zachary Margaret Cooper,Esq. Richard Yovanovich,Esq. JONES,FOSTER,JOHNSTON&STUBBS,P.A. Goodlette,Coleman&Johnson,P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive,Suite 1100 4001 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 300 West Palm Beach,FL 33401-5950 Naples,FL 34103 RE: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Settlement Agreement Dear Margaret and Rich: As you both know, there have been multiple iterations of the proposed settlement documents with multiple changes since the document I transmitted on January 4, 2007 that is attached to Margaret's September 13, 2007 letter. Given this history,which can be documented,I reject the analysis offered by Margaret in her September 13,2007 letter. With that said, I am enclosing the most recent underlined and strikethrough version of the proposed settlement documents based upon my discussions with Rich last week. In my opinion, the Board needs to consider and expressly approve the changed term your client is now requesting insofar as the effective date of the release. In addition,the Board needs to be told that the building separation issue still exists based upon the PUD and the SDPs. The mere striking of references to the building separation issue from the settlement documents does not make it go away. As you know, the Board has also requested that the Planning Commission look at the settlement documents and, based upon your client's request for a continuance of the proceeding before the Planning Commission, it is my understanding that will occur in November. As we have discussed,I am leaving the County Attorney Office to enter private practice. In the future,this matter will be handled by David Weigel and Marjorie Student-Stirling. I strongly recommend that you, Rich, meet with David and Marjorie as well as Planning staff as soon as possible and review this most recent set of settlement documents with specific attention to the building separation and the release issues. Very truly yours, Michael W.Pettit Chief Assistant County Attorney MWP/nfb enclosure cc: David C.Weigel,County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling,Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt,Administrator,Community Development and Environmental Services Susan Istenes,Director,Zoning and Land Development Review 06-cmd-00024/1295 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this day of , 2007 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida(the"County")and Lodge Abbott Associates,LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the PUD in question is also sometimes referred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD; and WHEREAS, Lodge filed a petition for certiorari in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida to attack the County's decision concerning the proposed amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle Management Plan,that case being styled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier County,Case No. 05-967-CA; and WHEREAS, on or around May 1,2006, Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Harris Act"), Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4)(c) of the Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, the settlement offer and this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the County's Land Development Code ("LDC") and Growth Management 1 I I Plan ("GMP") by, among other things, providing for certain environmental enhancements to protect bald eagles on Lodge's PUD property; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and Release, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound,Lodge and the County mutually agree to the following: 1. The County and Lodge agree to adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as'Whereas clauses"by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. The settlement documents will consist of the original PUD Ord. No. 2000-88, the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan for that PUD, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement and Release as Exhibit 1, and this Agreement and Release which expressly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release,the original PUD will control. 3. The settlement shall be contingent upon three site development plans ("SDPs") that Lodge has submitted being approved by the County, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County as well as the development standards set forth in the original PUD and as may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. In accordance with paragraph 17 of this Agreement and Release, however, the parties also agree that a rejection of any of these SDPs relating in any way to docks shall not fall within the contingency stated in this paragraph and shall in no way alter the binding nature of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are referred to as AR5282,AR5283 and AR5284. 4. The County will expedite the review of the SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge or any subsequent purchasers of the property. The existing environmental impact statement ("EIS") does not need to be amended unless the SDPs are 2 11 • substantially amended. In this instance, a substantial amendment shall mean any increase in wetland impacts beyond the impact permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five(5%)percent. 5. Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable workforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment. 6. Within fifteen (15) days of the approval of the latter of the three SDPs, Lodge shall contribute the sum of $3 million to the County to fund Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements. No impact fee credits shall be given for payment of this sum. Lodge recognizes that the County may request additional contributions up to the proposed road impact fees due for 590 dwelling units to assist the County in funding the construction of the Vanderbilt Drive Bridge enhancements. No such additional contributions shall be required, however, until the County provides evidence that all parties have spent $5,500,000.00 on the Vanderbilt Drive Bridge enhancements. Any such sums paid over the initial $3 million shall receive road impact fee credits. Nothing in this Agreement and Release, however,is intended to nor shall it restrict in any way the County's ability under applicable laws, ordinances or rules to r uire sere fifty percent (50%) of all transportation impact fees upon approval of the SDPs. 7. Lodge and the County agree that the Cocohatchee Bay PUD shall be exempted from the County's PUD sunsetting provisions within the LDC until the latter of the three SDPs 3 • • are approved. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions now in effect in the LDC (see LDC Section 10.02.13 D 1.a) shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. As each residential condominium building receives a certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth (1/5) of what is known as the GC Parcel which at the time the entire project is developed will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2)residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 2. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reason,then all of the GC Parcel including without limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those portions allowed for the two (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 for the Preserve Parcel. 9. To fully satisfy its obligations to construct sidewalks along adjacent off-site public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway ten (10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006) in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. This construction shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall commence upon the issuance of the building permit for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached to this Agreement and Release shall be increased from fifteen (15) to seventeen (17) habitable floors,but shall not exceed 175 habitable feet in height. Footnote 2 to Table 1 of Paragraph 3.5 4 , • • entitled "Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the PUD shall hereby be deemed revised in accordance with this provision of this Agreement and Release. The-minium The maximum number of dwelling units to be constructed by Lodge shall not illr exceed 590 units. Of these, a maximum of 590 units shall be multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However, two (2)units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as follows: minimum lot area—6,000 square feet; minimum lot width—sixty (60) feet; front yard setback from internal road — twenty (20) feet; front yard accessory building including parking structure — twenty (20) feet; side yard — seven point five (7.5) feet; rear yard— twenty (20) feet; rear yard for the accessory building — ten (10) feet; maximum building height — eighteen (18)feet; minimum floor area— 1200 square feet; each single family dwelling u t shall be set back a minimum of 200 feet from the north and east boundaries of the PUD Project. Building height shall be as defined in Table 1 of Paragraph 3.5 of the PUD. 012. What has been referred to as the R-1 and R-2 Parcels shall be replaced by a single R parcel as set forth in the revised PUD Master Plan, attached to this Agreement and Release as Exhibit 3. The development standards for the R Parcel are as set forth in the high rise multi- family dwellings portion of Table 1 of Paragraph 3.5 of PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 (except as may be expressly modified by the Agreement and Release). 5 13. If there are additional changes to the Bald Eagle Management Plan required by federal or state agencies, no further County PUD amendment process shall be required. Lodge, however, shall be required to notify the County of any such changes required by state or federal agencies, which will then require an administrative change by the County to any of the previously approved SDPs emote-iris under review or that have been approved by the County. 14. Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its elected officials, employees, ex-elected officials, ex-employees, insurers, sureties, agents, attorneys, and representatives of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord. No. 2000-88, the related Bald Eagle Management Plan or any amendment or proposed amendment of the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 or the Bald Eagle Management Plan through the date this Agreement and Release are approved and authorized by the Board for the Chairman's signature including without limitation all Harris Act claims and the claim asserted in Case No. 05-967-CA. This release is shall be immediately effective as--of-the-date upon the County's approvesal the fo.r: e *phis- „ent f the 3 SDPs in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement and Release. 15. In the event of a third party challenge to this Agreement and Release, the County and Lodge agree to work cooperatively to defend this Agreement and Release. In this regard,the County and Lodge shall each seek to become parties to any such challenge proceeding if one or the other of them is not named as a party in the first instance. The County and Lodge shall each bear their own costs and attorney's fees in any such proceeding. 6 S • 16. If any third party challenge to this Agreement and Release should ever be successful, after exhaustion of all appeals or other requests for review or reconsideration or federal permit conditions prevent Lodge from being able to develop the project consistent with the revised PUD Master Plan then the County agrees to return all money provided by Lodge under this Agreement and Release upon sixty (60) days written notice from Lodge and to allow Lodge to retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. In addition, if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain required fecal; state-or federal permits (exclusive of any federal permits or approvals for docks), Lodge likewise will be entitled to a refund of all moneys provided under this Agreement and Release within sixty(60)days of written notice from Lodge and Lodge shall retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. 17. Nothing in this Agreement and Release or the settlement documents shall be construed or interpreted to confer any rights to docks or any particular number of docks. Any application for docks by Lodge or its successors or assigns shall be fully subject to all federal, state and County permitting requirements and reviews. 18. The settlement and the Agreement and Release shall be binding upon Lodge's and the County's predecessors,successors,assigns,officers,employees,owners, elected officials,ex- elected officials,ex-employees,insurers,principals and representatives. 19. This Agreement and Release shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. 20. This Agreement and Release may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release. 7 • • 21. The County and Lodge acknowledge that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision that may exist in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party either based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous language or that the language in question was intended to favor one party or the other. 22. The effective date of this Agreement and Release shall be the date upon which the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida approves and authorizes the Chairman to execute this document. 23. The County and Lodge acknowledge and assume the risk that additional,different or contrary facts to the facts which they believe exist may now exist or may be discovered after this Agreement and Release has been entered into, and they agree that any such additional, different or contrary facts shall in no way limit, waive, affect or alter this Agreement and Release. The County affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the project as authorized by the PUD and this Agreement and Release or the enforceability of this Agreement and Release. Lodge affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the project as authorized by the PUD and this Agreement and Release or the enforceability of this Agreement and Release. 24. In the event of a breach of this Agreement and Release, either party to this Agreement and Release may enforce its terms in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In this respect, the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary. 8 • • ATTEST: Dwight E. Brock, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: BY: DEPUTY CLERK JAMES N. COLETTA,CHAIRMAN WITNESSES: Signed Name Printed Name LODGE ABBOTT ASSOCIATES,LLC BY: Signed Name ITS: Printed Name Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Michael W. Pettit Chief Assistant County Attorney 06-cmd-00024/1294 9 GoodnerAngela From: Aluminum Glass Solutions <aluminumglasssolutions@centurylink.net> Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 1:36 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed To the Collier County Commissioners, We are a small family owned and locally operated glass &glazing company. We are currently subcontracted by C.R. Smith for the glazing specs at Kalea Bay. We have just learned that there is some opposition to the 2"d phase of Kalea Bay, and naturally we are concerned. An opportunity to participate in such a significant project, not only for our small company, but for so many trades in our community,that have the opportunity to participate, would benefit the whole community as this is a project that would last for many years—creating job opportunities and benefiting our industry. Considering the very hard years the construction industry and Collier County suffered not too long ago, a project of this magnitude is such a positive outlook for companies and their employees. It has truly been a positive experience to be part of this project for our company, as well as others we are sure. On the other hand the tremendous financial hardship for all involved with this project, if halted -would be appalling. Companies such as our own, have prepared themselves- invested in additional insurances, materials and even equipment to fulfill their contract obligations and most importantly provided additional opportunities of employment. Our company, as well as all the others involved and their employees,we are certain,will be immensely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. Thank you for your time and careful considerations. Many Thanks, Juan and Nydia Lopez Aluminum Glass Solutions, Inc. 239-354-1001 office 239-354-1009 fax info@AluminumGlassSolutions.com www.AluminumGlassSolutions.com 1 GoodnerAngela From: Fred Schuman <fs@jndmech.com> Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 1:07 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Josh Willard (Josh.willard@manhattanconstruction.com); Nate Farnsworth Subject: Re; Petitioned opposition of Kalea Bay Tower 2 permit application Attachments: To Collier County Commissioners.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear sir and madam Please review the attached abbreviated summery documenting J&D Mechanical's historical Kalea Bay man power activity. Thank you in advance for your consideration during the opposition deliberation process. Thanks Fred R Schuman Cell 239.770.2828 Office 239.288.5834 Email link fs@jndmech.com President J&D Mechanical LLC. CMC 1249359 The information contained in this email message, including all attached documents, is intended only for the professional /personal and confidential use of the designated recipients named above and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited.Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately and delete it from his or her computer. J&D Mechanical LLC. 5021 Luckett Rd Fort Myers FL 33905 2 To: Collier County Commissioners. From:J&D Mechanical LLC. Re: Petitioned opposition of Kalea Bay Tower 2 permit application. AS the Mechanical Contractor for both Manhattan and CR Smith any opposition to permitting is Extremely Concerning for many reasons but our immediate concern is for our employees and their families. Below is data to illustrate the financial impact of not permitting Tower 2 on our small businesses employees, using Tower 1 as a benchmark given that tower 2 is very similar. Tower 2 activity for MEP trades was anticipated to begin on or about 12/1/17, listed are hours for J&D fulltime Kalea Bay field employees and our fabrication facility employees, whose times is also applied to Kalea activity's as shop, the applied hours stated are from our job costing data from 6/1/16 thru 5/31/17 to provide clear time line of 1 full year of activity for reference clarity. Please note that appropriate pay scale with full benefits including family health insurance applies to all full-time employees. • Over the 12-month time line above we posted 51,085 field applied hours or(25 full time employees) Tower 1. • Over the 12-month time line above we posted 13,637 shop applied hours or(7 full time employees)for pre fabrication, packaging and delivery from our fabrication facility to Tower 1. • Tower 1 alone employed 32 full time employees for referenced duration. Additional activity over the 12-month time line above we posted 21,873 hours, this time was applied to out-building facilities structures or additional(10 full time employees)for same referenced duration. Business office operations staff employed by J&D Mechanical to facilitate pre-construction planning through current activity for approximately 30 months to date, staff includes Management, project coordinator, estimators, cad-draftsmen, clerical and accounting. we have applied 3,500 business staff hours conservatively to date. Going forward activity for J&D Mechanicals service department upon completion of Tower 1 and out building facilities will include Service management, service technicians, dispatch and clerical for warranty repair service, 3 years contractually, 4,000 hours. Additional anticipated activity is preventative maintenance, this will employ minimally 1-2 full time employees initially to preform preventive maintenance tasks and none-warranty service to building 1 and it's 120 residences, common areas and out building facilities. Upon completion of Kalea Bay development the preventative maintenance and service tasks will employ 3-5 full time employees,potentially for the life of the structures. I hope that 1 have provide you with real world insight of how significantly Kalea tower 2 and this first-Class Development in its entirety is in supporting local small business as ours and their working-class families. J&D Mechanical is only 1 of hundreds of businesses this Development will financially impacts directly and/or indirectly today and for many years to come. Thank You Fred Schuman/President J&D Mechanical Nathen Farnsworth/Vice President J&D Mechanical GoodnerAngela From: Andy Cathey <acathey@rosenmaterials.com> Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 7:58 AM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Phase 2 To the Collier County Commissioners, I have been a resident of Collier County since 1987 and part of the Construction industry since 1989. It has come to my attention that there is some opposition to the 2nd phase of Kalea Bay. My company, Rosen Materials, supplies building materials and supplied Kalea Bay Phase 1. During that time we added additional employees that have supported Collier County in many other areas. I am concerned with any decision to stop this project as it will continue to provide our employees (currently at 32) continued employment. The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and growing economy. Thank you for your time! Andy Cathey Regional Manager-West Florida 239-253-8529 acathey@rosenmaterials.com ROSEN MATE RIALS 3 GoodnerAngela From: Josh Willard <Josh.Willard@manhattanconstruction.com> Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 7:25 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Attachments: 2017.07.05_Kalea Bay_CCBC Letter.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Good morning. Please see the attached letter regarding the Kalea Bay project. I greatly appreciate your attention to this matter. Thank you, Manhattan Building excellence. Josh Willard Senior Project Manager Manhattan Construction (Florida), Inc. 3705-1 Westview Dr, Naples, FL 34104 239.643.6000 phone 239.643.6030 fax I 239.895.5671 cell josh.willard(cr�manhattanconstruction.com www.manhattanconstruction.com The only thing better than recognizing a quality product is building one. 4 Manhattan Construction(Florida),Inc. 239.643.6000(office) 3705-1 Westview Dr. 239.643.0090(facsimile) Naples,FL 34104 www.manhattanconstruction.com Manhattan Building excellence. — — June 30, 2017 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N. Naples, FL 34104 To Whom It May Concern: I have recently learned that the next phase of Kalea Bay is being met with some resistance. This causes me concern, not only as someone who currently works at the Kalea Bay project, but also as a Collier County resident. Kalea Bay is one of the most important economic milestones to emerge in Southwest Florida since the recession. Kalea Bay delivers opportunity to varying local companies and,to date has provided work to hundreds of people in the local workforce. A project of this magnitude creates years of economic growth for both the construction industry and local businesses. Manhattan Construction and our partners in the Southwest Florida community will be directly impacted by the outcome of your upcoming meeting regarding Kalea Bay. The Lodge Abbott team has been a forward thinking and driving force in this community for decades. They have been a valued partner for numerous local businesses and members of the community. They have provided opportunities when our industry has seen its highest and lowest moments. In addition, as an employee of Manhattan Construction, I have spent a great deal of time with the Collier County staff and I cannot emphasize enough the level of professionalism at which each project is handled. From my experience,the team at the Growth Management Department have always conducted business with the highest standards in strict accordance with all of the applicable codes. I,for one, am proud of my involvement with Kalea Bay and implore you to consider the positive impact of this project when making your decision. Thank you, os it a'� Seni 'r Projec anager Man attan Construction (Florida), Inc. GoodnerAngela From: BrownleeMichael Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 3:33 PM To: BrownleeMichael; FilsonSue; GoodnerAngela; GrecoSherry; LykinsDave Subject: Hand Delivered item re: item 8A Attachments: 20170707153154508.pdf In addition to the email sent this afternoon, Katherine English's office (Pavese Law Firm) hand delivered the attached this afternoon at 3:25pm. Michael Brownlee Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Donna Fiala, District#1 W. Harmon Turner Building-Bldg"F" 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite#303 Naples, FL 34112 P: (239) 252-8601 F: (239) 252-6578 MichaelBrownlee@colliergov.net C..,o r C 01411ty Subscribe to Commissioner Fiala's Newsletter here. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 5 GoodnerAngela From: Sandy Smith <SandySmith@Paveselaw.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 2:30 PM To: McLeanMatthew; KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: BosiMichael; ralf@ralfbrookesattorney.com; mcooper@jonesfoster.com; Karen Bishop (karenbishop@pmsnaples.com); Katherine English Subject: Request for Party Intervenor Status.July 7, 2017 Attachments: Request for Party Intervenor Status.July 7 2017.pdf 5 e-e Brow Oe er vo/,2 - Ste►' - a chrvv2.-A- Ms. English requested the attached pdf document be forwarded to you for your information and review. Hard copies will be hand delivered shortly. Please contact us at your convenience if you have any questions or cannot open the attachment. Sandy Smith Legal Assistant to Katherine R. English JJ\/1SE 1833 Hendry Street(33901) JA\A yj TDJ I Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers,FL 33902 u 'j-- Direct 239.336.6249 Fax 239.332.2243 sandvsmith(a,paveselaw.com Visit our website: www.paveselaw.com Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this transmission is legally privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone call to (239) 334-2195 and delete the message. Thank you. This law firm acts as a debt collector. This e-mail may be an attempt to collect a debt. If so, all information obtained will be used for that purpose. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd. 7 PAVE,SE KATHERINE R.ENGLISH Partner LAW FIRM - Email:�nrhrriDirect dial;(239)336.6249 m•t nn{ictviimavr,Aa‘a ram 1833 Hendry Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 I P.O. Box 1507, Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1507 I(239)334-2195 I Fax(239) 332-2243 rBEOTIET July 7, 2017 11 JUL 0 7 2017 Board of County Commissioners Mr. Matthew McLean By Collier County,Florida Engineering Services- 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Growth Management Division Naples,FL 34112 Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Collier County Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112-5749 Naples,FL 34112-5746 Re: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Administrative Appeal by Judith S. Palay, et al. Kalea Bay Phases 2-6 PL20160002242 Ladies and Gentlemen: Our firm represents Lodge/Abbott Associates, LLC and Lodge/Abbott Investments Associates,LLC. (collectively,"Lodge/Abbott"),the owners of Cocohatchee Bay PUD.We are co-counsel with Margaret Cooper, Esquire,of Jones Foster Johnston&Stubbs who handled the earlier litigation resulting in the 2008 Settlement Agreement regarding this project. I will be appearing at the appeal hearing on July 11, 2017 on behalf of Lodge/Abbott.Also appearing for Lodge/Abbott will be Karen Bishop of PMS Inc.of Naples,Inc.Ms.Bishop is the project entitlement facilitator. This appeal arises from a challenge to Lodge/Abbott's request for an amendment to a previously issued site development plan(SDP Amendment)for the project authorizing Buildings 2,3 and 5. The original 2008 SDP for which an amendment is sought was approved by staff in the regular course of business. The Appellants make much of the fact that the County and the land owner entered into the Settlement Agreement resolving a dispute over the appropriate approach to a bald eagle management plan for the project. The Settlement Agreement and its provisions are not relevant to the appeal challenging the present amendment to the SDP. The SDP Amendment subject to this appeal is limited in scope and includes only issues normally addressed by staff in the regular course of business. 4632 VINCENNES BOULEVARD,SUITE 101 4524 GUN CLUB ROAD,SUITE 203 CAPE CORAL,FLORIDA 33904 WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33415 (239)542-3148 (561)471-1366 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7, 2017 Page 2 The purpose of this letter is as follows: To request intervenor and party status for the project owner,Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC.,identified as the owner for the application to the amendment of AR-5284,Phases 2-6. To provide you with historical context of the Cocohatchee PUD and 2008 Settlement Agreement relative to the present SDP Amendment that is the subject of this appeal. To request determination of the standing of the Appellants to take an appeal in the first place. To address the scope of the appeal and identify the limited issues which can be heard in this appeal. To address the authority vested in staff and the standard of review of the Board on an appeal. To address the substantive arguments raised by Appellants. Intervenor/Party Status Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC. is the project owner and holder of the amended site development plan approval(SDP)for Buildings 2,3 and 5,from which this appeal arises.The appeal is a challenge to the decision of County staff approving the requested amendment; however, the appeal directly affects Lodge/Abbott's authorized plans for the phases of the project specifically approved by this SDP Amendment. Lodge/Abbott is an interested and affected party with vested development rights and it should be given party intervenor status and, be allowed to present evidence and argument and cross examine other parties' witnesses. We request confirmation of the same. Historical Overview' of the PUD and the 2008 Settlement PUD History. Collier County Ordinance No. 2000-88 was passed December 12,2000.It approved a planned unit development known as the "Cocohatchee Bay PUD" (the "Subject Property" or "Project"). Attached to the Ordinance was the original PUD document. Attached to the PUD document was a Bald Eagle Management Plan to address bald eagles nesting in an extremely degraded pine tree on a portion of the property that was near the planned residential development. The development committed to provide all required state and federal permits as a requirement of development. The PUD Ordinance authorized 590 residential units in five residential towers and multi-family homes located on a parcel west of the golf course.The ratified PUD constituted a substantial"down zoning"from the prior zoning substantially reducing the number of units and significantly reducing the traffic impacts associates therewith. In addition to the immediately realized reduction of density,there was substantial increase of I This historical overview comes from Lodge/Abbott's Petition for Certiorari and Appendix.The Petition and Appendix is submitted separately as part of the record in this Appeal.The Petition contains more details as to the facts.This letter is a brief overview. 1 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 3 neighborhood open space/conservation areas that would not be otherwise attainable. It was the increase in preservation/open space which garnished the approval of criteria noted in the PUD specifically utilizing the more desirable clustered design type development.By encouraging site design that located most of the units in the five towers, rather than single family or low density multi-family homes, the end result was more open space, golf course, and preservation areas which now constitute approximately 90% of the 532 acres in the property. The project's preservation commitment is extraordinary. The project's preserve areas total 431.37 acres, including uplands, wetlands and submerged lands. The preservation provided by the project west of Vanderbilt Drive completes the connection for a wetland/waterway preservation area that stretches from Bonita Beach Road to Bluebill Avenue and connects to the State owned lands along the coast. Initial Reliance of Lodge/Abbott. The original applicant for the PUD Ordinance was a contract purchaser,Vanderbilt Partners II,Ltd. Lodge/Abbott later bought Vanderbilt Partners'contract in reliance on passage of the PUD at a purchase price in excess of$32 million was set in reliance upon the passage of the PUD. Lodge/Abbott has also invested substantial time and money toward active development. Also,Collier County required Lodge/Abbott to provide monies ($3,000,000.) for improvements to the bridge, dedicate easements,and provide rights of way on Vanderbilt Drive. Right-of-way was also provided for Wiggins Pass Road as a condition of the PUD. PUD Requirement for a Bald Eagle Management Plan. At the time of PUD approval,a pair of bald eagles had nested in a dead slash pine tree located on the westerly portion of the Subject Property. The LDC and GMP required a Bald Eagle Management Plan which had to comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the USFWS and FFWCC. Collier County GMP and LDC on Species Protection—Deference to State and Federal Permitting. Collier County's GMP(addressing protected species)called for deference to state and federal agency guidelines and their decisions. County staff had no expertise in such matters.The County policies referred to the standards contained in the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and the USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. For bald eagles,the Habitat Management Guidelines called for protective zones around the nest and restricted development activities during the nesting season. In Collier County once there has been a specific ruling by the USFWS and FFWCC,subparagraph(3)of GMP Policy 7.1.2.became the operative standard and deference to the specific ruling is mandated. Similarly,the County Land Development Code§3.04.02(2005),mandated the owner use the guidelines found in the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle. The Code repeated the GMP deference to the specific rulings of the state and federal agencies on individual properties, on a case-by-case basis. There was never a proposal to harm the eagles or even to cut down the nest tree. SDP Application. After getting state and federal approvals,Lodge/Abbott submitted site development plans("SDP")for the clubhouse and residential dwelling units to Collier County, The SDP application called for modifications to the site plan and moving of units from the golf course to the tower buildings. Also, the PUD document had a setback requirement between principal structures,calling for half of the sum of the height Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr.County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 4 of the structures. It also provided for staff approval(administratively)for reduced set back between clustered principal structures with a common architectural theme. See Section 3.5 of the original PUD. The new SDP proposed to reduce setbacks between principal structures.The PUD document spells out that the original Master Plan was conceptual only and amendments could be made according to the LDC. The LDC provides for staff approval for such changes. County Response to SDP Submittal. In response to the SDP submittals, Collier County issued a comment letter asserting that the Bald Eagle Management Plan required review by both the EAC and the Planning Commission, as well as final approval by the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC"). Lodge/Abbott was told to file a rezoning petition to amend the PUD Ordinance in order to amend the Bald Eagle Management Plan. The County never took the position that SDP amendments for the project required BCC approval. PUD Amendment Application. Under protest, Lodge Abbott submitted an application for a PUD amendment to modify the Bald Eagle Management Plan. BCC Limited Review to Eagle Plan Only. On September 21, 2004, the BCC voted that the PUD amendment was a limited review—limited solely to the Bald Eagle Management Plan("BEMP"). No other aspect of the PUD was considered. Therefore, density, setbacks, height, etc., were not reconsidered. The County recognized that any changes to these items were administrative in nature and for staff review only. Public Hearing-Vote on BEMP. The BCC voted to deny the application by vote of 4 to 1. The vote of the BCC was limited only to the consideration of the Bald Eagle Management Plan.The denial was based solely on the BCC's conclusion that the County could impose tougher standards than the FFWCC and USFWS and could protect a single pair of eagles rather than the approach mandated by FFWCC and USFWS. The County never took the position during this process that site development plan modifications required public hearings and BCC approval. The Litigation.In response to the decision denying the Bald Eagle Management Plan,Lodge/Abbott filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Circuit Court challenging the BCC's decision and a Bert Harris damage claim for the diminution in value of its property should the court determine that the County had the legal authority to prohibit all development to protect a single pair of eagles. The 2008 Settlement.In 2008,the County and Lodge/Abbott entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement") to resolve the litigation. Aside from the additional monies paid by Lodge/Abbott for County roadway improvements, there are several relevant aspects to the Settlement Agreement to bear in mind: Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo B. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 5 The Settlement Agreement approved the PUD amendments to change the location of the units into one R zone and to amend the Master Development Plan. Original PUD RI zone 480 units 44.0 acres R2 zone 90 units 9.7 acres Golf Course 20 units 170.39 acres 590 units total Amended PUD R Zone 588 units 53.7 acres Golf Course 2 units 170.39 acres 590 units total *See Amended PUD Paragraph 2.3 and Table 1 The Settlement Agreement did not address or include approval of the SDP changes calling for the requested reduced setbacks.The Settlement Agreement was,however,contingent upon staffs timely approval of the three SDPs. The County recognized and understood that the review and approval of those three SDPs, including subsequent modifications to those SDPs were considered normal exercises of administrative staff level functions. In other words,approvals of SDPs were not,nor have they ever been matters for the BCC.See paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement! Contrary to Appellants'assertion,the Settlement Agreement did not require or otherwise provide for BCC review of future SDP amendments. It only required BCC approval of changes to the Settlement Agreement itself;which relates to the bald eagle management plan,not site development plans.See paragraph 21 of the Settlement Agreement.3 The Settlement Agreement approved the Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan and removed the requirement that any future amendment to the BEMP required County EAC review.See paragraph 6,9.F. How the County has implemented Settlement Agreement. Since 2008 both the County and Lodge/Abbott have implemented the Settlement Agreement exactly as it reads and as they understood it—that SDP review and approval is a staff administrative matter. This is exactly how every other project in Collier 2 3. The settlement shall be contingent upon three site development plans("SDPs")that Lodge has submitted being approved by the County as well as the development standards set forth in the original PUD and may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR 5283,and AR5284. 3 21. This Agreement and Release may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release.This Agreement and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 6 County is treated under the LDC, whether in PUD zoning or other normal zoning districts. SDP plans are internal to the project and are an administrative matter since the impact externally has been mitigated thru the development criteria established in the approved PUD Ordinance and Collier Land Development Code. Staff review assures that the details comply with the objective PUD standards and the LDC standards. Technical and ordinary discretionary planning matters have been delegated to staff. This is no different than SDP approval by staff for any other zoning districts(whether it be RSF,SMF,Commercial,PUD or otherwise). A public hearing is not required and there was no intent to deviate from that process for the Cocohatchee PUD through the acceptance of the Settlement Agreement. In fact,the following SDP amendments to Cocohatchee Bay have occurred administratively since 2008: Original SDP Phase 1 =AR-5283,June 2008. Subsequent staff approvals: Short Title Description SDP# Approval Date 1 Phase lA Gatehouse, 1A 20140001382 Oct-14 2 Phase 1B Balance of Ph 1 20150000420 Aug-15 3 Water B Water and Sewer public 20150002903 Jan-16 Fire at cottages,trellis,dumpster, 4 SDPI 1 Generator 20160000723 Apr-16 Tennis,pickleball, fire lines club, club entrance,water east club,roof 5 SDPI 2 leaders tower, golf parking,maint 20160002600 Dec-16 parking, island x W/S Record Water and Sewer Record Dwgs 20160002553 6 SDPI Phasing Maint Phasing plan for maint bldg. 20170000649 Feb-17 7 SDPI Misc Revisions Misc "catch-up"revisions 20170001964 Jun-17 Finally,delegation of approval rights to staff for minor changes to the overall development(including the reduction of setbacks for clustered developments with a common architectural theme)is commonplace in Collier County and is not unique to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD.It is called for in the LDC at Section 4.02.04 A. The stated purpose in this code section is to allow internal clustering in an innovative design to accommodate greater open space elsewhere in a planned development.How clustering is achieved is a design feature which is properly reviewed by professional planning staff. The BCC has approved the clustering concept as a policy matter as set forth in the LDC and the details of how to implement that policy are delegated to planning staff Contrary to Appellants' suggestion that the buildings are being crammed onto a small land mass, the total vistas and open space provided by this project are vast(90%of the project)and greatly exceed the code requirements. The impact of the additional reduction in building separation in the SDP Amendment on the existing open space is nonexistent. Further,there is no discernible impact on any perceived external vistas from Vanderbilt Drive at 35 miles an hour or from the north or south of the project. If the buildings were further EE Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 7 separated,there would be a need to further impact areas previously set aside as preserves to accommodate the development. Standing and Status of Appellants The location of the proposed buildings is significant.They are located as far west into the interior of the property as possible, abutting the westerly wetlands and preserves,to provide the greatest distance from the Vanderbilt Drive right-of-way.The property is bounded on the west by Wiggins State Park and Barefoot Beach County Park and the wetland preserve buffers for those parks. To the east of the project's 159+/- acre golf course parcel is Tarpon Cove PUD. Wiggins Bay PUD,is located south of the golf course parcel and Wiggins Pass Road.To the north of the golf course parcel is Glen Eden,Falling Waters,Bentley Village and Audubon. To the south of the high-rise parcel on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive are the existing mid- to high-rise projects of Aqua, Pelican Isle Yacht Club, Marina Bay, Anchorage,and the Dunes PUD. To the north of the western parcel is Arbor Trace PUD and Egrets Walk. Most of the Appellants live north of the Cocohatchee PUD.Due to their specific locations within their own development projects,the existing substantial landscaping buffers for those projects provide visual screening so that they are not impacted visually by this project. The building separation modification is internal to the Kalea Bay project and addresses the buildings' physical proximity to each other, not to other developments. Moreover the north to south alignment of the buildings means that changes in the building separation as proposed has no visual impact of the vistas from the property to the north. Internal setbacks anticipated by a clustering site design are truly an internal matter — not a development aspect that burdens any adjoining property owner or neighbor. Pursuant to Section 250-58,an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party may appeal a site development plan. An affected property owner is an owner of property located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is effective. An aggrieved or affected party is a person or group of persons who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth Management Plan,Land Development Code, or Building Code(s). While the alleged adverse interest for an aggrieved or affected party may be shared in common with other members of the community at large,it must exceed the general interest in the community good common to all persons(emphasis added). The Appellants have failed to provide justification for their standing to raise this appeal, either as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party. Prior to hearing the basis of the appeal, as filed, Appellants must establish their standing to bring the appeal either due to proximity to the project or an interest which exceeds the general interests in the community good of all persons. To the extent that one,some or all of the Appellants cannot establish their status as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party,their individual claims should be dismissed for lack of standing. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 8 Scope of Appeal—What Can Be Heard and What Evidence Can be Relied Upon The Appellants raise nine issues—some of which have nothing to do with the current SDP approval,See for example Issue 7(Restrictive Covenants),Issue 8(Invasive Control),and Issue 9(10 Foot Pathway).These !� should be stricken from the appeal of the SDP approval as irrelevant and untimely. Secondly,Appellants do not delineate between early SDP amendments for which the time to challenge has expired and the current SDP Amendment subject to this appeal. Appellants' challenge to any decision covered under a prior SDP Amendment that was not earlier challenged is untimely and cannot be considered. Third,Appellants have submitted a"record"of exhibits to which objection is made.Most documents referred to are rank hearsay-letters,newspaper articles,etc. The Appellants' "record" should be stricken and any exhibits submitted at hearing should be ruled upon individually as to admissibility. Most importantly,Appellants rely heavily upon a recommendation by the Planning Commission in 2008 on the Settlement Agreement to remove staffs discretion to administratively reduce setbacks in accordance with that permissible for a clustered development.The BCC rejected this suggestion in 2008.This recommendation was not included in the Settlement Agreement nor can be inserted into the Settlement Agreement by the current BCC under the guise of an appeal of the SDP amendment. Standard of Review The BCC's standard of review for an appeal of an SDP is not addressed in the LDC.Such review should be limited to determining whether staff deviated from the requirements of the LDC and PUD language relevant to the reduction building setbacks in issuing the amended SDP approval. In both the Settlement Agreement and the LDC,the planning staff is afforded discretion to approve reduced separation between buildings to facilitate clustered developments.The building separation reductions are clearly part of the design elements internal to a planned project which meets the specific clustering goals and criteria of the LDC.These types of design features are not policy decision matters for the BCC,but rather technical,internal design issues more properly heard by the County's professional planning staff.The discretion to address these kinds of design questions has been delegated to staff by LDC and by the PUD documents.Staff acted within the parameters set forth in both documents in deciding to issue the requested amendment to the SDP. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 9 Substantive Arguments Issue 1. Public Hearing Appellants assert that the Settlement Agreement requires a public hearing and BCC approval before amendment to SDP plans.It does not.In fact,the Settlement Agreement did not call for the BCC to approve the 2008 SDP plans—but only made the Settlement Agreement contingent upon staffs review and approval of the 2008 SDP plans.The Settlement Agreement only modified the PUD Document vis a vis the Eagle Management Plan.Paragraph 21 deals with amending the Settlement Agreement only—not amending future SDPs.The PUD document specifically requires SDP amendments to be reviewed and issued by staff and clearly allows modification to building setbacks to facilitate clustering by staff's administrative action. Issue 2.Building Separation Appellants rely heavily on the Collier County Planning Commission("CCPC")suggestion in 2008 to eliminate the staffs discretion to consider reduced building setbacks to facilitate clustering.This suggestion by the CCPC was not accepted by BCC and is not part of the Settlement Agreement the BCC approved. Contrary to Appellants claims that the buildings are too close,the Collier County LDC specifically sets forth definitions for"cluster"and"cluster development"that provide for closely grouping buildings in order to provide environmental benefits. Indeed, the definitions for those words include the rationale for allowing closely grouping buildings in order to increase open space and reduce impacts to native vegetation and habitat areas while reducing the costs of providing services. 4 Next Appellants argue that staff abused its discretion in approving the reduction of building separation by large percentages and that reductions should be limited to small percentages of the overall building separation requirements. The Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards for the "R" District set forth in Table II of the amended PUD states that the distance between principal structures is 0.5 times the sum of the building heights,subject to Note 3 which states: Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and the walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The plan language of the PUD clearly states that the building separation can be administratively reduced. Further,since the BCC in reviewing and adopting the amended PUD as part of the Settlement 4 LDC Section1.08.02 Cluster:Concentrating or grouping buildings more closely than in conventional arrangements,locating such buildings on a limited portion of a development site,in order to allow for open space or preservation of natural features. Cluster development:A design technique allowed within residential zoning districts or where residential development is an allowable use.This form of development employs a more compact arrangement of dwelling units by allowing for,or requiring as the case may be,reductions in the standard or typical lot size and yard requirements of the applicable zoning district,in order to: increase common open space;reduce the overall development area;reduce alterations and impacts to natural resources on the site;to preserve additional native vegetation and habitat areas;and,to reduce the cost of providing services,including but not limited to central sewer and water. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 10 Agreement chose not prohibit administrative reductions of building separation nor did it set a limit on administrative discretion to do so. The modification of the building separation by staff is clearly authorized where the walls are not parallel to each other and the language of the amended PUD clearly explains the circumstances which would give rise to that determination(angled,skewed,or offset). Further,clearly the BCC knows how to limit staff discretion for clustering since it adopted limits to building as part of Table 5 of LDC Section 4.02.04. LDC Section 4.02.04 sets forth the design standards for cluster residential design in Subsection(C)Table 5 which clearly limits the reduction of distance between principle structures to no less than 10 feet. However, Subsection F goes on to state that additional reductions may be approved by the Collier County Planning Commission. Clearly,the BCC does limit staff discretion to reducing the building separation to no less than 10 feet. There is no indication in the documents associated with this Project that this limitation applies to the SDP Amendment. In this instance,Lodge/Abbott is entitled to seek administrative approval to reduced building separations pursuant to its amended PUD. Even if the limitation on the reduction of building separation set forth in LDC Section 4.02.04 does apply to the pending SDP Amendment,the building separation reduction authorized in no way approaches the limits set forth in Table 5. Issue 3. Building Widths This is the same argument as Issue 2, but stated in terms of building width rather than building separation.This argument fails for the same reasons set forth above. Issue 4. Guest Suites This issue is not timely raised. Guest suites were approved as part of the original PUD and authorized for construction in earlier SDPs.Guest suites as defined in the LDC and the PUD are not"units"for purposes of calculating density by rule. Guest suites cannot be sold to third parties,but are instead part of the common area amenities for use by all unit owners specifically to accommodate their guest overflow.Further,these units do not include a kitchen which is required for a dwelling units. This issue cannot be addressed again on appeal of approval of an amended SDP for Buildings 2, 3 and 5. 5 Collier LDC Section 1.08.02 Definitions: Dwelling(also called dwelling unit):My building,or part thereof,constituting a separate,independent housekeeping establishment for no more than I family,and physically separated from any other rooms or housekeeping establishments which may be in the same structure.A dwelling unit contains sleeping facilities,sanitary facilities,and a kitchen. Guest quarters/guest suites:An attached or detached room or suite,which could be used as a temporary sleeping accommodation, which is integrated as part of the principal use of the property and may contain running water as long as it is not configured or of a size that may accommodate a kitchen. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 11 Issue S. Building Height This is a non-issue. The locating amenities on the roof area of each tower were previously addressed. There is no amenity located on the roof that affects calculation of the building height. The current amenities located on the roof tops are limited to a recreational area that is not enclosed in an air-conditioned space. By code,these amenities are not sufficient to constitute an additional floor for height calculations. Issue 6. Garage Dwelling Unit The proposed building manager's living area in the.SDP Amendment is not within the garage,but in a separate building that is part of the common area for the Project. It is an accessory use, not a unit offered separately for sale,to assure housing for on-site management. Staff's approval of the building manager's living area in the separate building as an accessory use has no effect on the calculation of building height for Buildings 2, 3 and 5. The approval is authorized by the PUD provision regarding accessory uses. See Section 3.4.B.3.6 Furthermore,the manager's unit does not count toward density under the applicable LDC regulations and the PUD as an accessory use. Issue 7. Restrictive Covenant This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal.Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to restrictive covenants. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 8. Invasive Control. This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal.Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to invasive control. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 9. Ten Foot Pathway This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal. Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to the ten foot pathway. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. }P- t 6 3.4.B.3 Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature to the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Department Director determines to be compatible in the"R"Districts. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 12 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons the appeal filed herein should be denied. Sincerely, PAVESE LAW FIRM atherine R. EtIglish / MLC/KRE:ebg cc: Ralf Brookes,Esquire Margaret L. Cooper, Esquire Michael Bosi Karen Bishop GoodnerAngela From: Inga Lodge <inga@kaleabay.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 3:15 PM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.neT;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: Kalea Bay To Collier County Commissioners: It is with great disappointment that I have heard there is to be a hearing on the future status of Kalea Bay. I am currently the Broker at the sales office at Kalea. We have had to deal with the harassment of many names on this list. They enter the sales office and complain we have illegally started building,they loudly complain we don't have permits etc. They do this in front of customers. Diane Rupnow even started a web page that we had our legal department shut down. Out of the 120 condo's in Tower 100, 60% are new buyers to Naples. They have the same dream as everyone else that would like to make Naples home. They have had plenty of opportunities to purchase in other existing high rises and chose to wait for Kalea Bay. There is nothing that says financial stability in Collier County then starting a high rise community. The last high-rise to be completed was Moraya Bay in 2009. Our new buyers are majority cash buyers paying an average of$1,800,000 to live at Kalea. Naples is poised to have a 4.9% increase in Economic Growth in the next year. How does that happen if a few people can dictate what can and can't be built? It seems that the citizens have more power than the Collier County Commissioners. The Commissioners that we vote for. 80%of our new residents at Kalea Bay are not homestead, that means these new homeowners will pay the highest property tax. That will be over $2,160,000 in property tax paid a year just on Tower 100! Of the list of 93 names presented for the appeal are you aware that 29% of the people on the list are not full- time residents? They can not vote for the County Commissioners, but they are allowed to dictate whether 300 full-time residents continue to work in North Naples. We are not just building the Kalea Bay community, we are building FOR THE COMMUNITY, for those people that work and live in North Naples. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Warm Regards, INGA W. LODGE BROKER/VP SALES & MARKETING 13910 Old Coast Rd Naples, FL. 34110 (o)239.793.0110(c)239.560.1171 Wilson&Associates Exclusive listing agent KALEA 0-7 C) 0 6 GoodnerAngela From: Bret Groos <Bret.Groos@communityelectricfl.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 10:02 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Good morning, I am reaching out to you all today to express my support for the Kalea Bay project, much like the hundreds of people that have purchased units in the first two buildings we are all very proud of this community. We have been operating in collier county for 45 years and are a strong supporter of this place we call home.We understand that from time to time there is opposition to growth, it's funny how most of it is from people who have moved here and know think no one else should. I am sure you all deal with this very often.That being said,the stalling of this project is starting to have a financial impact on many of the local subcontractors,vendors and suppliers that are involved in the project,all of these businesses supply thousands of jobs in Collier County and have made commitments to the project team to reserve man power and re-sources for the project,so from the owners to the workers there is concern of the starting date of phase 2. Thank you for your attention, hopefully this can be rectified soon. tOMMUNILYLE IECTR1C pFiCOLIIIER, INC. �� ~ t x+ iiik Bret Russell Groos President Office: 239-262-3438 Fax: 239-262-6943 Mobile: 239-253-0807 Bret.Groos@communityelectricfl.com 8 GoodnerAngela From: Judi Palay <judi@palay.org> Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2017 9:52 PM To: SolisAndy Cc: GoodnerAngela Subject: RE:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Could you please let me know if you and the other Commissioners received the narrative we submitted for the Administrative Appeal. Thank you- Note new email address please Judi Palay judi@palay.org 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Original Message From:GoodnerAngela [mailto:AngelaGoodner@colliergov.net] On Behalf Of SolisAndy Sent: Friday,June 16, 2017 12:34 PM To:Judi Palay<judi@palay.org> Subject: RE:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Thanks for the new address,Judi-- I will update our records. The Commissioner was referring to a request from Mr. Brookes that went through the County Attorney's office. And I had confirmed with the Chair's aide that she received the request as well. Have a good weekend! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Original Message From:Judi Palay [mailto:judi@palay.org] Sent: Friday,June 16, 2017 11:49 AM To:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: RE:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad I know--I sent it to her. This was just to keep you up to date as you are our Commissioner 9 Note new email address please Judi Palay judi@palay.org 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Original Message From:SolisAndy [mailto:AndySolis@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday,June 16, 2017 11:30 AM To:Judi Palay<judi@palay.org> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Subject: Re:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Judy, The request has been sent to Chairman Taylor.The setting of a time certain is up to her as the Chair. Unfortunately, I cannot discuss that with her due to the sunshine law. Atty Klatzkow will advise your attorney directly. Thank you. Andy Solis, Esq. County Commissioner, District 2 Collier County Board of Commissioners District Office: 239-252-8602 Sent from my iPhone On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM -0400, "Judi Palay"<judi@palay.org<mailto:judi@palay.org»wrote: Per Attorney Klatskow, we are requesting a time certain for the Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay because our attorney has a conflict for the morning of July 11. Would you please help us to assure that we may have legal representation with time and date certain. Thank you- Judi Palay Note new email address please Judi Palay judi@palay.org 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Forwarded message From: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com<mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com» Date:Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM 10 Subject:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net<mailto:JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net», SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net», BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net», CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net<mailto:NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net», OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net<mailto:LeoOchs@colliergov.net»,AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>> Thank you Jeff Please find letter attached to County Manager and BCC Chair regarding a request for advance time certain (delivered per email below). Can you please deliver this letter to them via email because per the recent proposed Fla Bar rules, I would like to communicate through you on this matter and I do not have the email for the BCC Chair. PS- I am available July 11 after 1 pm and also available anytime July 12 the following day as you note may happen given the number of expected items on this agenda. Thanks again, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone(239) 910-5464<tel:(239)%20910-5464> Fax(866) 341-6086<tel:(866)%20341-6086> RalfBrookes@gmail.com<mailto:RalfBrookes@gmail.com> Ralf@ RalfBrookesAttorney.com<mailto:Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com> Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttorney.com<http://www.ralfbrookesattorney.com/> On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 4:19 PM, KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» wrote: Ralf: We will run the ad as amended by you below. Please advise if you would like further changes.The ad will state a 9:00 am time, which is our present custom . The agenda is prepared by the County Manager and the Chair. Whether they will agree in advance to a 1:00 or later time certain is up to them. Given the number of expected items on this agenda, I cannot even say with certainty that this item will be heard on the 11th; it could be heard the following day. If any of this is not satisfactory,you can write the County Manager and the Chair a letter requesting a time certain, setting forth the reasons why you are requesting it, or you or someone else can request a time certain in front of the entire Board as they are approving the agenda during Item 2 on July 11th. 11 Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239) 252-2614<tel:(239)%20252-2614> From: Ralf Brookes [mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com<mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com>] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 3:15 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net<mailto:JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net»; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net»; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:M ichaelBosi@colliergov.net» Subject: Re: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Jeff Can you please provide me with assurance in writing in advance regarding not starting this item until I am able to be present on July 11th- I can be there anytime after 1 pm on July 11. I would prefer that the notice of hearing change 9:00 am to "1:00 pm or as soon thereafter as can be heard." [I also hope this would avoid confusion for the many citizens we expect to attend the hearing and allow them to comfortably arrive in the afternoon rather than be there all day in reliance on the official notice that they will read in the newpaper.] Also " "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution"should be removed and replaced with "Notice of Intent to Consider an Administrative Appeal" Many thanks in advance, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone (239) 910-5464<tel:(239)%20910-5464> Fax(866)341-6086<tel:(866)%20341-6086> RalfBrookes@gmail.com<mailto:RalfBrookes@gmail.com> Ralf@ RalfBrookesAttorney.com<mailto:Ralf@ RalfBrookesAttorney.com> Board Certified in City,County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttorney.com<http://www.ralfbrookesattorney.com/> On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 2:57 PM, SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net» wrote: Mr. Brookes, See the attached revised ad for your approval. Historically,the Board works to balance concerns of all parties. The Board exercises due diligence to grant specific times for agenda items when requested, and you have requested 1 p.m. or later. 12 You may approve the attached advertisement and then if necessary request an attendance should an issue arise. Please see attached. Respectfully, Camden Smith, MPA Operations Analyst Collier County Zoning and Planning 0. 239.252.1042<te I:(239)%20252-1042> From: RodriguezWanda Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 2:41 PM To:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net<mailto:JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net»; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net»; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net» Cc:AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net»;AllenDebbie <DebbieAllen@colliergov.net<mailto:DebbieAllen@colliergov.net»; NeetVirginia <VirginiaNeet@colliergov.net<mailto:VirginiaNeet@ colliergov.net» Subject: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Awaiting planning and (hopefully) petitioner approval. I will be requesting that the line"Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" be removed from the header. Wanda Rodriguez,ACP Advanced Certified Paralegal Office of the County Attorney (239) 252-8400<tel:(239)%20252-8400> From: Martha S.Vergara [mailto:Martha.Vergara@collierclerk.com] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 2:25 PM To: RodriguezWanda <WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net<mailto:WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net»;AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net»; 'Velasco,' <Jessica@colliergov.net<mailto:Jessica@colliergov.net»; BellowsRay <RayBellows@colliergov.net<mailto:RayBellows@colliergov.net»; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net»;SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net» Subject: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Hello All, Attached is the revised ad proof per the petitioners changes. Let me know if there are any other changes. Thanks, Martha 13 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 14 GoodnerAngela From: Renee Gaddis <renee@reneegaddis.com> Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2017 1:15 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; BurtSaunders@colliergov.n; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay PUD Attachments: renee letter July 6 2017.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Renee Gaddis Principal Designer RENEE GADDIS INTERIORS1 t.239.431.8352 I m.239.848.5794 a.9915 Tamiami Trail N, Suite 1 I Naples, FL 34108 renee@reneegaddis.com www.reneegaddis.com 15 BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net McDaniel, Taylor, Saunder, Fiala, Solis Dear Collier County Commissioners: As a long-time Naples business owner, I am concerned that the opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay, should it be successful, may adversely affect the Southwest Florida economy and the Collier County tax base. Projects such as this generate significant tax revenue for our county and at the same time require little in government services. That's a win-win for government. It will also provide hundreds of jobs to an industry that is coming off years of stagnation. Commissioners, I urge you to support the Kalea Bay development project and allow our free market to work as it is intended and over the objections of the not- in-my-backyard opposition. Sincerely, Renee Gaddis Renee Gaddis Interiors 9915 Tamiami Trail N #1 Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 431-8352 GoodnerAngela From: Daniel Fusco <twcfusco@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2017 11:50 AM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay opposition Attachments: image1.jpeg; ATT00001.txt Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hello, Just a quick note in regards to the petition against phase 2 of Kalea Bay. I am the owner/operator of Woodworkers Cabinet of Naples, Inc and we work closely with CR Smith and his team to manufacture custom cabinetry and millwork for his clients. We have grown our company to over 30 employees and we primarily service CR Smith and the Kalea Bay project.We have recently purchased a second location down the street from our current shop on Taylor Rd.to enable us to keep up with the needs of the Kalea project and we are extremely excited for the remaining phases of this development. Please consider the impact on the families who are counting on this project for years to come and will need this to help pay for their kids college. (I have 5 of them!) Thank you and we appreciate our beautiful town and all the opportunities it offers to the trades people! Sincerely, Daniel Fusco 16 GoodnerAngela From: Brian Dollard <briandollardrce@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,July 3, 2017 1:13 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed To the Collier County Commissioners, It has been brought to my attention there is opposition to the development of the Kalea Bay Project by a few surrounding neighbors. Let me start by saying I am a 41 year Resident of Naples, I have been in the construction business for 38 years. I have seen all the changes from Ft. Myers to Marco Island.The construction industry here is 2nd to none for quality of job and the tradesman that build them. We are a vital part of our communities. From purchasing our own properties and creating commerce with other businesses and industries. Also by creating a better tax base for our State and local Government. I currently employ roughly 50 tradesman for our company. Local men and women who have families to provide and support.The Kalea bay Project is vital to my family and my employees families to live a quality life here in Southwest Florida. In this situation with the opposition opinion, it's a shame that a few who have their dwelling in the this location are opposed to those who would like a dwelling in the same location. (this makes no sense). The Kalea Bay project is the most beautiful thought out resort style community that I have been involved with and the privilege to work on. The construction Industry has been in some tough times as of late,just the past year or so we have been coming out of a serious slow down due to the financial crisis.All the people involved are starting to live a better life and contribute to the community in a more vigor way. If this project was delayed or stopped because of the few who only have their own interest in mind and not the greater good of the community it would be another hardship on the construction industry and the people involved. My company and its employees would certainly feel hardship in their lives. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Best regards to all of you. Brian Brian Dollard briandollardree@gmail.com RCE Contractors, Inc 3884 Progress Ave Naples, FL 34104 239-643-5758-Office 239-825-1532- Cell 239-643-6772-Fax CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is only for the person(s) named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail. 17 GoodnerAngela From: Arturo Guido <aguido@legnobastone.com> Sent: Monday,July 3, 2017 10:53 AM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed "To the Collier County Commissioners, "To the Collier County Commissioners, It has recently been brought to our attention that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned local Naples, Florida businessman who owns and operates a five-generation small business headquartered in Naples, Florida. We are extremely involved in the construction industry as we are a small sub-contractor that works directly for C.R. Smith. We are a boutiques manufacturing company with approximately 50 employees directly linked to the Kalea Bay project. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. The Kalea Bay project is a significant element to our business and crucial to the employees that are directly employed because of the Kalea Bay project. No to mention the monetary impact it will also have on all their families. Our company and our employees will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. It would be shameful to post pone the progress of this already approved project and negatively impact tens of thousands of families for the sake of a few. Thank you for your time!" Please consider the environment when printing this email.As a company deeply invested in wood,we appreciate your efforts to maintain a world with healthy forests and prudent environmental stewardship.Thank you! Legno(astone Wide Plank Flooring "Custom Designed Furniture for'Your Floor" 2684.-Corseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 (0)239-2061898 c#B Xegno 3asiione WIDE PLANK FLOORING Disclaimer Notice The E-Mail and the information contained in it and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged.If you received this email in error please notify us immediately.You are not authorized to,and must not disclose,copy,distribute or retain this E-Mail or any part of it. We have taken precautions to lower the risk of transmitting software viruses,but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on this message and any 18 GoodnerAngela From: Kevin Jensen <kevin@jensenunderground.com> Sent: Sunday,July 2, 2017 2:19 PM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.neT'; 'PennyTaylor@colliergov.net'; 'BurtSaunders@colliergov.net'; 'AndySolis@colliergov.net'; 'DonnaFiala@colliergov.net' Subject: Kalea Bay Buildings#2,3,4,5 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Collier County Commissioners, I understand that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned business owner who is heavily involved in the Kalea Bay project.This project has been on our books for over a year and in our projection of work for our employees. If this project were to be cancelled it would put a hardship on Jensen Underground Utilities, therefore possibly causing layoffs within our company. We currently employ 95 wonderful people who have families. Not only do we provide a pay check to our employees,we also provide 100% health insurance coverage. Many of the employees purchase health insurance for their families through their hard work a pay checks that they have earned. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Jensen Underground Utilities is very involved in both our communities and by providing quality opportunities,as well as teaching, coaching,training, and furthering developing people's skills. Our industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank You For Your Consideration, Kevin Jensen JENSEN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, INC. 5585 Taylor Rd. Naples, FL 34109 239-597-0060 Ext. 5 239-597-0061—Fax 239-825-1638—Cell Email: Kevin@iensenunderground.com Website:www.iensenunderground.com 20 GoodnerAngela From: John Wilkinson <John@sunmasterinc.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 3:10 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed To whom it may concern, I am a business owner that employs approx. 50 people Our company is heavily reliant on the construction industry for our living. Projects like Kalea Bay are the lifeblood of our revenue. So when we hear about a project such as Kalea Bay it allows us to more confidently invest in other areas of our economy as consumers. I have lived my whole life (48 years) in Naples so I do understand the idea of pushback against new developments such as this. But typically it doesn't come from natives, it comes from folks that took advantage moving into past developments that some may have been opposed to when they were going in. It makes me shake my head when I think about the "close the door behind me" mentality that happens. As I understand it the Kalea Bay development of 5 condo buildings has already been cleared but there are those who are trying to have it stopped. I sincerely hope you all take into consideration the trickle down effect that will happen if you stop the movement forward of this project. We are a small company but at least 1/3 of my people are currently involved with the workings of this project. Their jobs may not exist without it. When I go to jobsite meetings I see hundreds of people being employed on this site that again would be unemployed if it is shut down.Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please make the right choice for us. Sincerely, John Wilkinson President Sunmaster of Naples 900 Industrial Blvd Naples, FL 34104 239-261-3581 ofc. 239-261-7499 fax. 239-253-4773 cell. www.sunmasterinc.com 21 GoodnerAngela From: scott@amssoundandvision.com Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 2:28 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Cc: chadrsmith@me.com; marc@amssoundandvision.com; gsrichter@aol.com; jessicajudd@crsmithllc.com Subject: Kalea Bay project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed To the Collier County Commissioners, I am and have been a Naples resident since 1990. I have seen Naples grow from the small town to a larger town with that small town atmosphere. It is where I enjoy to live and therefore where I set up my family and my business. It pains me to hear that there is opposition to projects, specifically the Kalea Bay project. I understand what it is like to have construction go on next door and although it is a little annoying, it will pass and Naples is better for it. It is promising to our community when homes are built. It creates confidence in community, business, and family life! What better way to increase the value and the operation of our county than welcoming those who are willing to invest in its future! I am an owner of a small company that is involved with the Kalea Bay project.We are a small fish in the pond of contractors working on this project. I cannot speak for them, but we have added staff to our company, invested in advertising, business expansion, and showroom enhancements to provide for the potential 600+families that will call Kalea Bay and Naples, Fl their home. I can only make the assumption that the other companies have made similar investments. It takes a lot of people to build a community and even more to staff the location when it is complete. I would ask that you do not make any changes to these employees source of income or provide more stress for companies in the workforce by delaying the project. Our company and our employees families will be directly affected by the decisions you make. I appreciate your time. If you feel the need to reach out to me about my thoughts on this project,feel free to do so. Best Regards, Scott Moore AMS Sound &Vision Owner 22 °Rise and rise main and again until lambs become lions' ;) ill nil 5 Scott H. Moore Sofia Systems Designer-AMS Saud 8 lhsian _'__.'d,4.F/5'0,7 VoWN.allgiagidliidViSOLaam i' ._`+---. Helping to transform lives by reducing your waistline and tiXckening your wallet!What excites you?!Change your dreams into goads! Q.41 TRUSTWORTHY LOYAL HELPFUL FRIENDLY COURTEOUS HIND ...A wads to live by :'e.',j!A '# ' OBEDIENT CHEERFUL THRIFTY BRAVE CLEAN REVERENT "" !J 4 t Scoutmaster-viwwtoap243naptescorn '+ Associate Advisor-DA HT Chapter,Osceola Lodge t *.iPt.'#'4� Scoutmaster-Wood Badge S4-88-16-1 t4cl, ix 00 23 GoodnerAngela From: pureplumbingl4 <pureplumbing14@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 2:01 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed To the Collier County Commissioners, I have just been informed that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned Naples Resident/Business Owner, whom is heavily involved in the construction industry. I work for C.R. Smith, LLC., which contracts and manages over 50+ subcontractors that employ hundreds of workers in Florida in our contracting alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company, but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates. All the outlying businesses that are affected by the construction as well as the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years. It is encouraging to see and be part of a positive growing economy. Thank you for your time!" Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone • 24 GoodnerAngela From: Linda Crowe <linda.crowe@progressivewaste.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 1:55 PM To: "BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net'; FialaDonna; SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt Subject: Kalea Bay Tower#2 Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed To Collier County Commissioners, I am very disappointed there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. As an informed resident of Southwest Florida and who is heavily involved in the construction and real estate industry, it's unfortunate to hear of opposition to growth within our community. Not only am a licensed Real Estate Agent, I also am fortunate enough to be employed by Waste Connections, who provides hauling and disposal services on construction sites. Kalea Bay Building#1 has not only provided a significant employment opportunity for construction workers who work and live within our community; but has also benefited Southwest Florida by attracting affluent residents who have purchased condominiums in Tower 1. The benefits this project brings within our community reaches far beyond today. It supports our community for many years down the road by the jobs it creates to operate Kalea Bay and the opportunity it brings for outlying existing businesses as well as future business opportunities. The increase in tax revenue for Collier County should also be an important topic not be overlooked. We want to look for future growth and opportunity in Southwest Florida and opposing the second phase of Kalea Bay does not support our local industry of construction,tourism/snowbirds, and real estate markets. Hundreds of companies and probably an estimated thousand workers would be directly affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. The real estate and construction market has went through some very tough times and to stop the second phase of Kalea Bay would be going backwards. It is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy considering what we have been through. I hope that we can continue to grow as a community and every one of whose who work and live within this community can prosper and enjoy the life Southwest Florida has to offer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Linda Crowe I Territory Manager Waste Connections,Inc. 2289 Bruner Lane, Fort Myers, FL 33912 0:239-489-1716 I F:239-489-1652 I C:239-229-5473 t V WASTE.Cj� ON ac EL F .tin-,r,:li'tFix 11it'{'SSNfl 25 GoodnerAngela From: Aris Dougherty <adougherty1530@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 1:19 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: KALEA BAY 2 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hello, My name is Aris Dougherty, I reside in Collier County and work in the construction industry. My job will be directly affected in a very negative way if Kalea Bay 2 is halted. I don't understand why anyone wants to hold back Naples' growth and economy. Please consider the hundreds of people that will be affected if this project is halted. Thank you very much for your consideration, Aris Dougherty Naples, FL 27 GoodnerAngela From: Teale Mueller <tealemueller@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,June 30,2017 11:59 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Collier County Commissioners, My name is Teale Mueller. I am a sales associate and team member that has been instrumental in the day to day sales process of the Kalea Bay Community. I have also been involved in general real estate in Collier County for years. Our team has been involved with so many aspects of representing this wonderful Kalea Bay community and has been immersed in assisting not only our Kalea Bay buyers, but also providing information to and fostering relationships with hundreds of our Collier County full time and seasonal residents who have visited our site.. I am in a position to see the excitement of our future Kalea Bay residents,many who have worked,planned and saved over many years to be in a position to fulfill their dream of living in a community such as Kalea Bay. Another great aspect of being involved in this project is that I have also had the opportunity to see that hundreds of local men and women from many different companies/trades are proudly invested in the employment opportunities a project like Kalea Bay creates. From cleaners,to landscapers, construction workers, designers, material suppliers, cooperating realtors all who have benefited and have been able to provide a better quality of life for themselves and their families. Sometimes our society highlights and amplifies the negative opinions of a few people. This is unfortunate. I believe we all have a responsibility to open our eyes and ears to all of the good and opportunity a project like Kalea Bay presents to so many in our community. Kalea Bay will have such a positive impact in supporting our current and future local economy. There is no doubt that this unique and beautiful community will improve the lives of many for years to come. I thank you for your time and consideration, Teale Mueller Sales Associate Wilson &Associates i3910 old Coast Road maples. FL r+11O 259-7,9A-0110 o) 239-1-50-±$06.Cc) ` euleMuel1 \AN Wilson&Associates kir 1I3SUR. ±i+4 4F'.,, I 28 GoodnerAngela From: Jessica Judd <jessicajudd@crsmithllc.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 9:54 AM To: 'BiiiMcDaniel@colliergov.neT;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: Kalea Bay Bld #2 Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.tiff Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed To the Collier County Commissioners, I have just been informed that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned Naples local (over 31 years in Naples and two generations before) who is heavily involved in the construction industry as I work for C.R. Smith which contracts and manages over 50+subcontractors that employ hundreds of workers in Florida in our contracting alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project.The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank you for your time! Jessica Judd Assistant to Chad Smith/Office Manager lessicajudd@crsmithllc.com P: (239) 596-8003 F: 239.288.0575 C.R. SMITH, LLC CONSTflUC',ON 29 GoodnerAngela From: Chris.Brasher@Ferguson.com Sent: Thursday,June 29, 2017 1:39 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: FW: Kalea Bay Bld #2 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed To the Collier County Commissioners, I understand that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned citizen who is heavily involved in the construction industry as I work for Ferguson Enterprise which employees 700+associates (quality jobs+ benefits) in Florida in our plumbing division alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be directly affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. Ferguson is very involved in both our communities and by providing quality opportunities, as well as teaching, coaching,training, and furthering developing people's skills. Our industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Chris Brasher Ferguson a Wolseley Company Director of Branch Management-Florida District 10355 S Orange Ave. Orlando,Fl 32824 0: (407)856-5161 M:239-823-0935 Ferguson Online -Always Open! http://www.ferqusononline.com 30 GoodnerAngela From: Charlie Bauman <Charlie@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday,June 29, 2017 12:47 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Ron Bowling; Nancy Farnsworth Subject: Kalea Bay Building #2 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Collier County Commissioners, I am currently an employee of Acres and Son Plumbing, Inc. , a Collier County company for some 40 years. I have worked for Acres and Son Plumbing for over 8 of the past 15 years. I personally worked at the Kalea Bay job site full time as an assistant project manager from 04/01/16 until 12/31/16. Presently our staff at Kalea Bay site is only 20%of what it was because Building#2 has not yet started. Acres and Son Plumbing has already been negatively impacted because Building#2 has not started. If building 2 is not constructed,Acres will be even more seriously harmed as will my work with the company. In addition to Acres, many other subcontractors are being negatively affected. Hundreds of construction industry jobs are at risk if Kalea Bay Building#2 and further buildings are not allowed to be constructed. I sincerely ask for your consideration to allow the construction of Building #2 and further buildings at Kalea Bay to proceed. Thank you for your consideration. Kind Regards, Charlie Bauman Acres &Son Plumbing, Inc. 5701 Houchin Street,Suite 1 Naples, FL 34109 239-597-5031 Cell 239-734-0804 Charlie@acresplumbing.com 31 GoodnerAngela From: Ron Bowling <ron@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday,June 29, 2017 12:23 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Collier County Commissioners, I wanted to send my personal concerns in reference to possible delays in the construction of the next building at the Kalea Bay project. I work for a plumbing company that is currently working on the Kalea Bay project.With the planned start of building#2 we are able to keep our staffing working anticipating the next building to start. If it does not,there will be layoffs due to lack of work. I personally have struggled as many others for the last 8 to 9 years trying to survive the hardships in the most drastic down turn in construction this area has seen. It was a long,slow recovery and we are just now becoming hopeful in our futures in the construction trade and regaining some ground. I am very sensitive in concern with growth and over-development and believe our local government has found a balance for everyone in my personal experience of living here for over 40 years. I was fond of the Wiggins Pass area in the 70's when there was little more than a Marina and some small developments. That is not the case these days and much of that area is built on and believe the very people complaining reside in the adjacent areas probably have not been here for very many years. Nor do they likely reside here year round or earn a living here. Kalea Bay has already been approved and site developed for the future construction of these buildings.The potential opportunities for our working residents and the revenue to local business will be felt county wide and will effect hundreds upon hundreds of the collier working class and business owner residents. Please represent us in allowing this building to proceed as planned. Our livelihoods are counting on you. Sincerely, Ron Bowling Acres&Son Plumbing Inc. 5701 Houchin St Suite#1 Naples, Fl 34109 Office 239-597-5031 Fax 239-597-3740 ron@acresplumbing.com www.acresplumbing.com 32 GoodnerAngela From: Rene Acres-Hatch <Rene@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday,June 29, 2017 11:51 AM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Andy Solis, I am writing to express my concerns for halting the construction of Kalea Bay 2. I have resided in Naples for over 48 years and have been employed in the construction industry for over 30 years. Tourism is our industry here in Naples and construction is a large part of what keeps Naples growing to accommodate the new corners in our area. Halting the progress of Kalea Bay would have impacts on several areas that should be of concern to ALL Naples residents, not just the few in Glen Eden who might have their view obstructed. Glen Eden should take into consideration that they were entitled to develop their community without opposition from others in the area. Please know the decision that you make concerning this project will set precedence for all future projects and will affect the employment of hundreds of construction workers. I am asking that you please honor your approval of the development of Kalea Bay. Sincerely, Rene' Rene'Acres-3-latch R Acres Plumbing Co LLC 1911 Seward Ave, Suite 3 Naples, FL. 34109 PH: 239-598-0800 FX: 239-597-1590 Rene@acresplumbing.com { ACRES a� , o PlUMBING . - t'7 24 HOUR EMERGENCY SERVICE Website Like us on Facebook 33 GoodnerAngela From: Nancy Farnsworth <tennis.nut@mindspring.com> Sent: Thursday,June 29, 2017 11:37 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Hearing Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed bear County Commissioners, As a native Neapolitan, I have seen our county go through many many changes in my 53 years. Some have been very hard to take, yet overall I believe our County has been lead in a good direction with a balanced growth. My livelihood for over 30 years has been in the construction industry. The company I work for made it through the very difficult downturn in the housing/construction market, however only 21 of 192 employees kept their jobs and those who were still employed struggled with significant pay cuts and less working hours. Fortunately, the past couple years it has turned around. My employer is directly impacted by Kalea Bay. There were 25 employees who directly worked on building 1 and 5 others who did Kalea Bay work at the office including myself. If the Kalea Bay building 2 does not proceed, numerous employees, full time residents and your constituents will lose their jobs. Please stand firm against those who oppose this project that has already been approved. Thank you for your service and your consideration in this matter. Nancy Farnsworth 7818 Emerald Circle Naples, FL 34 GoodnerAngela From: Gregory.Bennett@Ferguson.com Sent: Tuesday,June 27, 2017 11:23 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Collier county team, My name is Greg Bennett and I work at Ferguson Enterprises. I have been a part of the Kalea project for the past 5 years. I mainly work on multifamily and have got to spend time in high rises both on our side and the other coast. There is nothing that represents Naples better than Kalea Bay. The project is unlike anything else in the state. It's a high level project,that has the quality and look that all of our northern friends are seeking. Many of the clients are also local Naples people looking for a second home. I know many of the buyers and can't explain their excitement to move in. These are people coming for weeks at a time. From a personal level,the stoppage of work would have a major effect on the economy and my family. My company alone has forecasted this work and planned accordingly. Many people have been hired and trained to service this job as we should. We have based things on feedback from sales. I am Estero residence who has a huge desire to move to Naples. I work in Naples,go to church at North Naples and mainly dine down south. My wife asks me every day when we can move. Projects like Kalea keep our dreams alive of being able to make the move down. We are younger(35 years old)with 3 kids. Naples schools for high school is what we want. I can't explain how many estero/fort myers friends of mine have the same dream to get down. Projects like Kalea provide the income to achieve this. Yes there are over 300 people on the project but there are a ton more behind the scenes. From the distributers to the designers, we would all be hurt from any stoppage. We are the people who are here year round spending money while others are gone. We are the future leaders of our community. Nothing represents Naples better than Kalea bay. Thanks for your time, Gregory Bennett Builder Sales Ferguson,a Wolseley Company 38 Goodlette-Frank Rd, Naples Fl 34102 USA 0:239-963-0080 C:239-872-2713 gregory.bennett@ferguson.com 35 GoodnerAngela From: Judi Palay <judi@palay.org> Sent: Friday,June 16, 2017 11:49 AM To: SolisAndy Subject: RE:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad I know--I sent it to her. This was just to keep you up to date as you are our Commissioner Note new email address please Judi Palay judi@palay.org 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Original Message From:SolisAndy [mailto:AndySolis@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday,June 16, 2017 11:30 AM To:Judi Palay<judi@palay.org> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Subject: Re:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Judy, The request has been sent to Chairman Taylor.The setting of a time certain is up to her as the Chair. Unfortunately, I cannot discuss that with her due to the sunshine law. Atty Klatzkow will advise your attorney directly. Thank you. Andy Solis, Esq. County Commissioner, District 2 Collier County Board of Commissioners District Office: 239-252-8602 Sent from my iPhone On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM -0400, "Judi Palay"<judi@palay.org<mailto:judi@palay.org»wrote: Per Attorney Klatskow,we are requesting a time certain for the Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay because our attorney has a conflict for the morning of July 11. Would you please help us to assure that we may have legal representation with time and date certain. Thank you- Judi Palay Note new email address please 36 Judi Palay judi@palay.org 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Forwarded message From: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com<mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com» Date:Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM Subject:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net<mailto:JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net»,SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net», BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net», CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net<mailto:NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net», OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net<mailto:LeoOchs@colliergov.net»,AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net» Thank you Jeff Please find letter attached to County Manager and BCC Chair regarding a request for advance time certain (delivered per email below). Can you please deliver this letter to them via email because per the recent proposed Fla Bar rules, I would like to communicate through you on this matter and I do not have the email for the BCC Chair. PS- I am available July 11 after 1 pm and also available anytime July 12 the following day as you note may happen given the number of expected items on this agenda. Thanks again, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone(239) 910-5464<tel:(239)%20910-5464>Fax(866)341-6086<tel:(866)%20341-6086> RalfBrookes@gmail.com<mailto:RalfBrookes@gmail.com> Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com<mailto:Ralf@ RalfBrookesAttorney.com> Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttorney.com<http://www.ra Ifbrookesattorney.com/> 37 On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 4:19 PM, KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>> wrote: Ralf: We will run the ad as amended by you below. Please advise if you would like further changes.The ad will state a 9:00 am time,which is our present custom . The agenda is prepared by the County Manager and the Chair. Whether they will agree in advance to a 1:00 or later time certain is up to them. Given the number of expected items on this agenda, I cannot even say with certainty that this item will be heard on the 11th; it could be heard the following day. If any of this is not satisfactory,you can write the County Manager and the Chair a letter requesting a time certain,setting forth the reasons why you are requesting it,or you or someone else can request a time certain in front of the entire Board as they are approving the agenda during Item 2 on July 11th. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239) 252-2614<tel:(239)%20252-2614> From: Ralf Brookes [mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com<mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com>] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 3:15 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net<mailto:JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net»; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net» Subject: Re: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Jeff Can you please provide me with assurance in writing in advance regarding not starting this item until I am able to be present on July 11th- I can be there anytime after 1 pm on July 11. I would prefer that the notice of hearing change 9:00 am to "1:00 pm or as soon thereafter as can be heard." [I also hope this would avoid confusion for the many citizens we expect to attend the hearing and allow them to comfortably arrive in the afternoon rather than be there all day in reliance on the official notice that they will read in the newpaper.] Also" "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution"should be removed and replaced with "Notice of Intent to Consider an Administrative Appeal" Many thanks in advance, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone (239) 910-5464<tel:(239)%20910-5464> Fax(866)341-6086<tel:(866)%20341-6086> RalfBrookes@gmail.com<mailto:RalfBrookes@gmail.com> Ralf@ RalfBrookesAttorney.com<mailto:Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com> Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: 38 www.RalfBrookesAttorney.com<http://www.ralfbrookesattorney.com/> On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 2:57 PM, SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net» wrote: Mr. Brookes, See the attached revised ad for your approval. Historically,the Board works to balance concerns of all parties. The Board exercises due diligence to grant specific times for agenda items when requested, and you have requested 1 p.m. or later. You may approve the attached advertisement and then if necessary request an attendance should an issue arise. Please see attached. Respectfully, Camden Smith, MPA Operations Analyst Collier County Zoning and Planning O. 239.252.1042<te I:(239)%20252-1042> From: RodriguezWanda Sent: Thursday,June 15, 2017 2:41 PM To:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net<mailto:JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net»; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net»; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net» Cc:AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net»;AllenDebbie <DebbieAllen@colliergov.net<mailto:DebbieAllen@colliergov.net»; NeetVirginia <VirginiaNeet@colliergov.net<mailto:VirginiaNeet@ colliergov.net» Subject: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Awaiting planning and (hopefully) petitioner approval. I will be requesting that the line "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" be removed from the header. Wanda Rodriguez,ACP Advanced Certified Paralegal Office of the County Attorney (239) 252-8400<tel:(239)%20252-8400> From: Martha S.Vergara [mailto:Martha.Vergara@collierclerk.com] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 2:25 PM To: RodriguezWanda <WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net<mailto:WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net»;AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net»; 'Velasco,' <Jessica@colliergov.net<mailto:Jessica@colliergov.net»; BellowsRay <RayBellows@colliergov.net<mailto:RayBellows@colliergov.net»; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net»;SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net» Subject: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal 39 Hello All, Attached is the revised ad proof per the petitioners changes. Let me know if there are any other changes. Thanks, Martha Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 40 GoodnerAngela From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Friday,June 16, 2017 9:36 AM To: SolisAndy Cc: OchsLeo Subject: TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Attachments: TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay.pdf Commissioner: A copy of this was forwarded to the Chair. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239) 252-2614 From: Ralf Brookes [mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 4:51 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net>; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo <Leoochs@colliergov.net>;AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Subject:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Thank you Jeff Please find letter attached to County Manager and BCC Chair regarding a request for advance time certain (delivered per email below). Can you please deliver this letter to them via email because per the recent proposed Fla Bar rules, I would like to communicate through you on this matter and I do not have the email for the BCC Chair. PS - I am available July 11 after 1 pm and also available anytime July 12 the following day as you note may happen given the number of expected items on this agenda. Thanks again, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 41 Phone (239)910-5464 Fax(866) 341-6086 RalfBrookes@amail.com Ralf@RalfBrookesAttomey.com Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RaifBrookesAttornev.com On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:19 PM,KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>wrote: Ralf: We will run the ad as amended by you below. Please advise if you would like further changes. The ad will state a 9:00 am time,which is our present custom . The agenda is prepared by the County Manager and the Chair. Whether they will agree in advance to a 1:00 or later time certain is up to them. Given the number of expected items on this agenda, I cannot even say with certainty that this item will be heard on the 11th; it could be heard the following day. If any of this is not satisfactory, you can write the County Manager and the Chair a letter requesting a time certain, setting forth the reasons why you are requesting it, or you or someone else can request a time certain in front of the entire Board as they are approving the agenda during Item 2 on July 11 to Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239)252-2614 From: Ralf Brookes [mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.coml Sent:Thursday,June 15,2017 3:15 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net>;SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Jeff 42 Can you please provide me with assurance in writing in advance regarding not starting this item until I am able to be present on July 11th - I can be there anytime after 1 pm on July 11. I would prefer that the notice of hearing change 9:00 am to "1:00 pm or as soon thereafter as can be heard." [I also hope this would avoid confusion for the many citizens we expect to attend the hearing and allow them to comfortably arrive in the afternoon rather than be there all day in reliance on the official notice that they will read in the newpaper.] Also " "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" should be removed and replaced with "Notice of Intent to Consider an Administrative Appeal" Many thanks in advance, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone (239)910-5464 Fax(866)341-6086 RalfBrookesngmail.com Ralf(aiRalfBrookesAttorney.com Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttornev.com On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:57 PM, SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>wrote: Mr. Brookes, 43 See the attached revised ad for your approval. Historically, the Board works to balance concerns of all parties. The Board exercises due diligence to grant specific times for agenda items when requested, and you have requested 1 p.m. or later. You may approve the attached advertisement and then if necessary request an attendance should an issue arise. Please see attached. Respectfully, Camden Smith, MPA Operations Analyst Collier County Zoning and Planning O. 239.252.1042 From: RodriguezWanda Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 2:41 PM To: VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net>; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net> Cc: AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>; AllenDebbie<DebbieAllen@colliergov.net>;NeetVirginia <VirginiaNeetC colliergov.net> Subject: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Awaiting planning and (hopefully) petitioner approval. I will be requesting that the line "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" be removed from the header. Wanda Rodriguez, .SCP AdvancedCertified Para(egar 44 Office of the County.Attorney (249)252-8400 ii 1 From: Martha S. Vergara [mailto:Martha.Vergara(a�collierclerk.com] E Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 2:25 PM To: RodriguezWanda<WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net>;AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>; 'Velasco,' <Jessica@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay<RayBellows(a,colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosia,colliergov.net>; SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net> Subject: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal li Hello All, Attached is the revised ad proof per the petitioners changes. Let me know if there are any other changes. I Thanks, , 1 Martha Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 45 GoodnerAngela From: Judi Palay <judi@palay.org> Sent: Thursday,June 15,2017 5:13 PM To: TaylorPenny; OchsLeo Cc: SolisAndy Subject: FW:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Attachments: TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay.pdf Per Attorney Klatskow,we are requesting a time certain for the Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay because our attorney has a conflict for the morning of July 11.Would you please help us to assure that we may have legal representation with time and date certain. Thank you- Judi Palay Note new email address please Judi Palay judi@palay.org 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Forwarded message From: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com> Date:Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM Subject:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelascoC@colliergov.net>, SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>, BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>, CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>, OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net>,AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Thank you Jeff Please find letter attached to County Manager and BCC Chair regarding a request for advance time certain (delivered per email below). Can you please deliver this letter to them via email because per the recent proposed Fla Bar rules, I would like to communicate through you on this matter and I do not have the email for the BCC Chair. PS- I am available July 11 after 1 pm and also available anytime July 12 the following day as you note may happen given the number of expected items on this agenda. Thanks again, Ralf 46 Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone(239)910-5464 Fax(866)341-6086 RalfBrookes@gmail.com Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttornev.com On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 4:19 PM, KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>wrote: Ralf: We will run the ad as amended by you below. Please advise if you would like further changes.The ad will state a 9:00 am time,which is our present custom . The agenda is prepared by the County Manager and the Chair. Whether they will agree in advance to a 1:00 or later time certain is up to them. Given the number of expected items on this agenda, I cannot even say with certainty that this item will be heard on the 11th; it could be heard the following day. If any of this is not satisfactory, you can write the County Manager and the Chair a letter requesting a time certain, setting forth the reasons why you are requesting it,or you or someone else can request a time certain in front of the entire Board as they are approving the agenda during Item 2 on July 11th Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239) 252-2614 From: Ralf Brookes [mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 3:15 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net>;SmithCamden <CamdenSmithPcolliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad 47 Jeff Can you please provide me with assurance in writing in advance regarding not starting this item until I am able to be present on July 11th- I can be there anytime after 1 pm on July 11. I would prefer that the notice of hearing change 9:00 am to "1:00 pm or as soon thereafter as can be heard." [I also hope this would avoid confusion for the many citizens we expect to attend the hearing and allow them to comfortably arrive in the afternoon rather than be there all day in reliance on the official notice that they will read in the newpaper.] Also " "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" should be removed and replaced with "Notice of Intent to Consider an Administrative Appeal" Many thanks in advance, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone (239)910-5464 Fax(866) 341-6086 RalfBrookesPgmail.com Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttornev.com On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 2:57 PM, SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>wrote: 48 Mr. Brookes, See the attached revised ad for your approval. Historically,the Board works to balance concerns of all parties. The Board exercises due diligence to grant specific times for agenda items when requested, and you have requested 1 p.m. or later. You may approve the attached advertisement and then if necessary request an attendance should an issue arise. Please see attached. Respectfully, Camden Smith, MPA Operations Analyst Collier County Zoning and Planning 0. 239.252.1042 From: RodriguezWanda Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 2:41 PM To:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net>;SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net> Cc:AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>;AllenDebbie<DebbieAllen@colliergov.net>; NeetVirginia <VirginiaNeet@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Awaiting planning and (hopefully) petitioner approval. I will be requesting that the line "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" be removed from the header. 49 Wanda Rodriguez, ACP Advanced Certified ParaCegaI Office of the County Attorney (23o)252-8400 From: Martha S.Vergara [mailto:Martha.Vergara@collierclerk.com] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 2:25 PM To: RodriguezWanda<WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net>;AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>; 'Velasco,' <Jessica@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay<RayBellows@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net> Subject: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Hello All, Attached is the revised ad proof per the petitioners changes. Let me know if there are any other changes. Thanks, Martha Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 50 GoodnerAngela From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Monday,June 12, 2017 4:26 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Attachments: 3 NarrativeAttachedtoAppealJune62017.pdf Commissioner: This should get you started. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239)252-2614 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing. 51 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 10:56 AM To: William Becraft Subject: RE: One Naples & Kalea Bay Thanks for your response, Mr. Becraft-and for catching my typo—I've typed the name so often in the last couple of weeks it's becoming a blur! We'll all be watching to see what is actually proposed when they do make application. Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:William Becraft [mailto:wbecraft@yahoo.com] Sent:Thursday, May 25, 2017 7:16 PM To:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Cc:William Becraft<wbecraft@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: One Naples& Kalea Bay The proposed One Naples (Not Naples One) project, could be very beneficial to the Vanderbilt Beach area, the area needs to be updated, but the scale needs to be toned down. Limit the new units to 100 - 150. The area could handle that kind of growth. Three hundred new units and 900-1200 more people would have a very detrimental effect on the area. Listen to the people who have lived in the Vanderbilt Beach area for many years,their quality of life is important. Bill Becraft From: SolisAndy <AndvSolisacolliergov.net> To: "wbecraft@yahoo.com" <wbecraftAyahoo.com> Cc: Marc Johnson <cimarc( aol.com>; jeff barkley-beachwalk <iigulfsideaol.com>; Jon Christensen <lynionllc(c�gmail.com>; Tom Glennon <tomq1941qmail.com>; Jim McComb <kdm7734(vahoo.com>; "Richardson, George" <grichardsonjcu.edu>; Topper Woelfer <twoelferl 0(gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:49 PM Subject: RE: One Naples & Kalea Bay Thank you for your email on the proposed Naples One project. I appreciate your concerns and know they are shared by many in the Vanderbilt Beach and surrounding areas. The Naples One project as presented is conceptual at best. At the time of this writing, Stock Development has not yet submitted any applications to the County for this development. There has been one, pre-application meeting; notes from staff after that meeting include the following excerpt: 52 "Overall, the project is unsettled, thus the Pre-Application meeting seems premature. It is difficult to discuss specifics when project size, location(s), development details and other features are not pinned down. No definitive discussion of data and analysis could take place . . ." Once it is submitted, the project will be subject to many different levels of review before approval is granted. During the review process, there will be many opportunities for the residents to ask questions and weigh in on the proposal—at neighborhood information meetings (NIMs), the Collier County Planning Commission, and the County Commission itself. I would urge you and anyone else with concerns regarding the project to attend these publicly noticed meetings. Other residents have written me to share that they welcome a re-development of this corner, a highly visible area that they feel does not currently present the image they would choose for their neighborhood. Community involvement throughout the review process can help shape any project to better address the neighborhood's needs and desires. It is very likely that the project eventually presented to the Planning Commission and County Commission will differ significantly from what was described at the May 17 meeting or what is currently seen on the website. My office will be monitoring the project during the entire process. If you need any information or have any concerns as the project moves forward, or if we can be of help on any other issue, please feel free to contact us. On behalf of Commissioner Andy Solis Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From: William Becraft [mailto:wbecraftAyahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:27 AM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy <AndySolis(a�colliergov.net>; TaylorPenny <PennyTaylor(a,colliergov.net>; BillMcDanial a,colliergov.net Cc: William Becraft <wbecraftvahoo.com>; Marc Johnson <cimarcAaol.com>; jeff barkley-beachwalk <iigulfside(cr�aol.com>; Jon Christensen <Iynionllc(a�gmail.com>; Tom Glennon <tomg1941(a�gmail.com>; Jim McComb <kdm7734( vahoo.com>; Richardson, George <qrichardsonicu.edu>; Topper Woelfer <twoelferl 0na,gmail.com> Subject: One Naples & Kalea Bay Dear Commissioners, As a resident of the Beachwalk community, I must express my displeasure with the proposed development of One Naples and to the changes considered for Kalea Bay. A 20 story condo tower and three 6 story condos with 300 units are too much for the Vanderbilt Beach area. All the near by 20 story buildings are in the Pelican Bay development, please be strong enough to limit buildings north of Vanderbilt Beach Rd to a more reasonable height, similar to the Turtle club, etc. The increased traffic will be a nightmare and have you ever tried to find a spot on the beach, so let's not add another 600+ people. 53 Kalea Bay should have never been allowed to build 5 hi rises in the first place, so please make them conform to the original plan and not allow them to make their buildings wider or taller. Isn't it interesting that the meetings for One Naples happen in the middle of May, after most seasonal residents have left for the summer. I am writing this because my wife and I fly north this afternoon and we will be unable to attend the meeting this evening. I am asking that you do not approve any condo over 6-7 stories and that the total number of units for the One Naples development be limited to 100-150. With Appreciation, Bill Becraft 564 Beachwalk Circle Naples, Fl 34108 Under Florida Law. e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 54 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 6:13 PM To: Donna Bianco Subject: RE: May 20, 2017 Hello, Ms. Bianco: Thank you for your email on the proposed Naples One project. I appreciate your concerns and know they are shared by many in the Vanderbilt Beach and surrounding areas. The Naples One project as presented is conceptual at best. At the time of this writing,Stock Development has not yet submitted any applications to the County for this development.There has been one, pre-application meeting; notes from staff after that meeting include the following excerpt: "Overall, the project is unsettled, thus the Pre-Application meeting seems premature. It is difficult to discuss specifics when project size, location(s), development details and other features are not pinned down. No definitive discussion of data and analysis could take place. . ." Once it is submitted,the project will be subject to many different levels of review before approval is granted. During the review process,there will be many opportunities for the residents to ask questions and weigh in on the proposal—at neighborhood information meetings (NIM5),the Collier County Planning Commission, and the County Commission itself. I would urge you and anyone else with concerns regarding the project to attend these publicly noticed meetings. Other residents have written me to share that they welcome a re-development of this corner, a highly visible area that they feel does not currently present the image they would choose for their neighborhood. Community involvement throughout the review process can help shape any project to better address the neighborhood's needs and desires. It is very likely that the project eventually presented to the Planning Commission and County Commission will differ significantly from what was described at the May 17 meeting or what is currently seen on the website. My office will be monitoring the project during the entire process. If you need any information or have any concerns as the project moves forward,or if we can be of help on any other issue, please feel free to contact us. On behalf of Commissioner Andy Solis Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From: Donna Bianco [mailto:ddonnabianco@gmail.com] Sent:Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:19 PM To:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: May 20, 2017 55 May 20, 2017 Dear Commissioner Solis, It was wonderful meeting with you at our Naples Park Association Clubhouse in April. During our meeting you discussed at length,the problems the Vanderbilt Beach area is enduring during season, highlighting traffic and beach access as the biggest concerns. We are now faced with yet another setback in our vision of beach access with the newly proposed project by Stock. Our community cannot accommodate yet another high-rise building of beachgoers! We continue to fight Moraya Bay and the lounge chairs they maintain as a stockade to keep locals from the area in front of their building, along the sand. The new Kalea Bay buildings will increase the density on that beach near the Immokalee Road access. During the NPAA meeting you proposed a trolley to move the people to beach access points all along Gulf Shore Drive, and in theory it may prove successful. But in reality the senior population of our community will have difficulty boarding the trolley with beach chairs, umbrellas, coolers...etc. The trolley is a band-aid on a much larger problem. We hope that you will support our efforts to increase community access to the local beaches and help us control the traffic we endure on a daily basis at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road during season. We need your help to assist Stock in focusing on community needs and not profits gained by their proposed development. My husband and I are counting on you to be our voice. Thank you, The Caccese Family Tom and Donna 56 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:50 PM To: wbecraft@yahoo.com Cc: Marc Johnson;jeff barkley-beachwalk;Jon Christensen; Tom Glennon;Jim McComb; Richardson, George ;Topper Woelfer Subject: RE: One Naples & Kalea Bay Thank you for your email on the proposed Naples One project. I appreciate your concerns and know they are shared by many in the Vanderbilt Beach and surrounding areas. The Naples One project as presented is conceptual at best. At the time of this writing,Stock Development has not yet submitted any applications to the County for this development.There has been one, pre-application meeting; notes from staff after that meeting include the following excerpt: "Overall, the project is unsettled, thus the Pre-Application meeting seems premature. It is difficult to discuss specifics when project size, location(s), development details and other features are not pinned down. No definitive discussion of data and analysis could take place. . ." Once it is submitted,the project will be subject to many different levels of review before approval is granted. During the review process,there will be many opportunities for the residents to ask questions and weigh in on the proposal—at neighborhood information meetings (NIMs),the Collier County Planning Commission, and the County Commission itself. I would urge you and anyone else with concerns regarding the project to attend these publicly noticed meetings. Other residents have written me to share that they welcome a re-development of this corner, a highly visible area that they feel does not currently present the image they would choose for their neighborhood. Community involvement throughout the review process can help shape any project to better address the neighborhood's needs and desires. It is very likely that the project eventually presented to the Planning Commission and County Commission will differ significantly from what was described at the May 17 meeting or what is currently seen on the website. My office will be monitoring the project during the entire process. If you need any information or have any concerns as the project moves forward, or if we can be of help on any other issue, please feel free to contact us. On behalf of Commissioner Andy Solis Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:William Becraft [mailto:wbecraft@yahoo.com] Sent:Wednesday, May 17,2017 9:27 AM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy <AndySolis@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; BillMcDanial@colliergov.net Cc:William Becraft<wbecraft@yahoo.com>; Marc Johnson <cjmarc@aol.com>;jeff barkley-beachwalk 58 <jjgulfside@aol.com>;Jon Christensen<lynjonllc@gmail.corn>;Tom Glennon<tomg1941@gmail.com>;Jim McComb <kdm7734@yahoo.com>; Richardson, George<grichardson@jcu.edu>;Topper Woelfer<twoelferl0@gmail.com> Subject: One Naples & Kalea Bay Dear Commissioners, As a resident of the Beachwalk community, I must express my displeasure with the proposed development of One Naples and to the changes considered for Kalea Bay. A 20 story condo tower and three 6 story condos with 300 units are too much for the Vanderbilt Beach area. All the near by 20 story buildings are in the Pelican Bay development, please be strong enough to limit buildings north of Vanderbilt Beach Rd to a more reasonable height, similar to the Turtle club, etc. The increased traffic will be a nightmare and have you ever tried to find a spot on the beach, so let's not add another 600+ people. Kalea Bay should have never been allowed to build 5 hi rises in the first place, so please make them conform to the original plan and not allow them to make their buildings wider or taller. Isn't it interesting that the meetings for One Naples happen in the middle of May, after most seasonal residents have left for the summer. I am writing this because my wife and I fly north this afternoon and we will be unable to attend the meeting this evening. I am asking that you do not approve any condo over 6-7 stories and that the total number of units for the One Naples development be limited to 100-150. With Appreciation, Bill Becraft 564 Beachwalk Circle Naples, Fl 34108 59 GoodnerAngela From: Ira Rubenstein <irar@me.com> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 3:48 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Development Dear Commissioner, We are full time residents at 445 Cove Tower Dr in Wiggins Bay Community and are very concerned about the continuing development and what seems like runaway growth in our community.The volume of traffic pressures on our infrastructure and yes,the view on the waterfront will be severely affected by the building of the towers known as Kalea Bay along Vanderbilt Drive. I urge you to vote against any changes in the approved plans for these towers that would increase the size of these structures and allow them to be closer to each other. Thank you for your consideration. Ira S. Rubenstein 445 Cove Tower Dr Apt 903 Naples FL 34110 239-597-3141 845-341-3099 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 60 GoodnerAngela From: Stephen Giuntini <margstep@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 4:35 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Mr. Solis, I am a homeowner in the Cove Towers section of Wiggins Bay. I bought property in this area, and specifically this development, because I like the ambiance and the fact that the area is not overbuilt. The residents coexist with the natural habitat to the benefit of all. The Kalea Bay project has morphed from the acceptable building that was proposed and approved in 2008 to a monstrous multi-building project which will form a concrete wall that will blot out the gulf views and overwhelm the local infrastructure. The buildings themselves are much taller than anything else in the area, and they are being built much too close together in violation of current applicable codes. This project, if it continues as apparently planned, will have an adverse effect on surrounding property values. I sincerely hope you stand up for the interests of your constituents and make the Kalea Bay developers conform to the business plan that was submitted and approved, and to current building codes.We do not need or want this area to become Miami West. Thank You, Stephen Giuntini 430 Cove Tower Drive, Unit#803 (516)680-0979 61 GoodnerAngela From: JudiPalay@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:23 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification The SDP Amendment to AR5284 that we got sent is only up to p 3. The one from 3-16-17 has 20 pages. We cannot compare changes with only 3 sheets. Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/16/2017 6:18:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, AndySolis@colliergov.net writes: I don't know,Judi. Can you describe better for me what you're looking for? Then I will be happy to see where it can be found. Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday, May 16,2017 6:10 PM To:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Question for you- We obviously do not have all of the SDP pages. How can we get the pages not on that site? 62 Judi Palay 239-51 3-9141 805-824-661 5 In a message dated 5/16/201 7 5:56:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, AndySolis@colliergov.net writes: Judi—just wanted to check and make sure they either got you the SDP or let you know that CityView was working again,so you can see it online. If you'd rather get it via email,just let me know and I'll send it along. Thanks! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12,2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com; djreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; Klatzkowleff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? 63 Judi Palay 239-51 3-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. +4 -r CQNtnryy Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM 64 To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application P120160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4 —PL20160002242 KaleaCivi103_2017-0504-May 112017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 112017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. Coi.tnty Matt McLean, P.E. 65 Collier County Growth Management Department Director- Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>; WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Pala <JudiPalay@aol.com>; SolisAndy <AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 66 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLean Matthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, 67 The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head ' � olatriG�V Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock <Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean 68 Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 69 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:18 PM To: JudiPalay@aol.com Subject: RE: FW: Request for Immediate Notification I don't know,Judi. Can you describe better for me what you're looking for? Then I will be happy to see where it can be found. Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:10 PM To:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Question for you- We obviously do not have all of the SDP pages. How can we get the pages not on that site? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/16/2017 5:56:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, AndySolis@colliergov.net writes: Judi—just wanted to check and make sure they either got you the SDP or let you know that CityView was working again,so you can see it online. If you'd rather get it via email,just let me know and I'll send it along. Thanks! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 70 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalav@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalav@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12,2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressv@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com; dlreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/201 7 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Go County 71 Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA)application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4— PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans— 72 Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CitvViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co r Cars»ty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA <brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay <JudiPalav@aol.com>;SolisAndy<AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification 73 Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:ruonowdiane( gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. 74 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a)gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a�gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkisonna colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head Com► r County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@ycolliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA 75 <brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<dlreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay <JudiPalav@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdianena,gmail.com judipalav(a)aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity. instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 76 GoodnerAngela From: JudiPalay@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:10 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Question for you- We obviously do not have all of the SDP pages. How can we get the pages not on that site? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/16/2017 5:56:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, AndySolis@colliergov.net writes: Judi—just wanted to check and make sure they either got you the SDP or let you know that CityView was working again, so you can see it online. If you'd rather get it via email,just let me know and I'll send it along. Thanks! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com;dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com;djreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification 77 Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/201 7 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. C:itx ��' C.cna.riry Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 78 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application P120160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4— PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans— Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. 79 Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director- Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA <brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay <JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager 80 leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>wrote: 81 Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)is approved. David S.Wilkison,P.E. Department Head Cao er County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA <brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay <JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi 82 Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 83 GoodnerAngela From: JudiPalay@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:05 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you-- got it. We also notified them that we could not pull it up as CityView wasn't working. Thanks for checking! Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/16/2017 5:56:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, AndySolis@colliergov.net writes: Judi—just wanted to check and make sure they either got you the SDP or let you know that CityView was working again, so you can see it online. If you'd rather get it via email,just let me know and I'll send it along. Thanks! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com;dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com;djreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification 84 Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 85 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA)application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4— PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans— Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/locator by entering the application number P120160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. 86 Co Ccaunty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: Klatzkowleff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA <brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay <JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager 87 leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>wrote: 88 Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head Ccs er County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA <brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay <JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi 89 Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 90 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:56 PM To: JudiPalay@aol.com Subject: RE: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Judi—just wanted to check and make sure they either got you the SDP or let you know that CityView was working again, so you can see it online. If you'd rather get it via email,just let me know and I'll send it along. Thanks! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com; djreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence, associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. 91 er County Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo <LeoOchs@col liergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter 92 • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. J Co er County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael 93 <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv lgmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<iamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. 94 I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(o�gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a�gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison(cr�.colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison,P.E. Department Head Co er County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net 95 From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane(c�gmail.com judipalav(a�aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 96 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 12:43 PM To: McLeanMatthew Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Great,thanks, Matt. Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:28 AM To: GoodnerAngela<AngelaGoodner@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Yes,they were originally informed. I have had only one follow-up request for information which was provided last week. Matt From: GoodnerAngela Sent:Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:24 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you, Matt. Have the residents been informed as well? Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator County Commissioner Andy Solis District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6946 Sent from my iPhone From: McLeanMatthew<matthewmclean@colliergov.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:02 AM Subject: RE: FW: Request for Immediate Notification To: GoodnerAngela<angelagoodner a colliergov.net> Angela, The Cityview portal issue has been resolved. You should be able to download any of the associated documents from the public portal. If you need additional information, please let me know. Thanks. 98 Co r County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: GoodnerAngelaOn Behalf Of SolisAndy Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:45 PM To: McLeanMatthew<McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletterHERE! From:JudiPalav( aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>;ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net;brad@taxis-usa.com; direedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida(a colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;Strain Mark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>;rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? 99 Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co r Coxnty Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— 100 PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 112017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal linkhttp://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co. eV Caxnty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From: OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<bradc taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify youif/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." 101 I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a/gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(ca�gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkisonna colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head Go r uatY Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLean Matthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aoLcom>;AndvSolicePcolliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. 102 Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdianeqmail.com judipalavCu7aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 103 GoodnerAngela From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:28 AM To: GoodnerAngela Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Yes,they were originally informed. I have had only one follow-up request for information which was provided last week. Matt From: GoodnerAngela Sent:Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:24 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you, Matt. Have the residents been informed as well? Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator County Commissioner Andy Solis District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6946 Sent from my iPhone From: McLeanMatthew<matthewmclean@colliergov.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:02 AM Subject: RE: FW: Request for Immediate Notification To: GoodnerAngela<angelagoodner@colliergov.net> Angela, The Cityview portal issue has been resolved. You should be able to download any of the associated documents from the public portal. If you need additional information, please let me know. Thanks. County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 104 From: GoodnerAngelaOn Behalf Of SolisAndy Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:45 PM To: McLeanMatthew<McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean(a�colliergov.net> Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletterHERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>;ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@Bmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net;brad@taxis-usa.com; dlreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<iamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>;rupnowdiane@Bmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence, associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. 105 Co er Count y Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: Klatzkowleff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA)application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivi103_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 112017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal linkhttp://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. G o er Ceti Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department 106 Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<iamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify youif/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane©gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a�gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a�gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, 107 The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head Co >er County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: Klatzkowleff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com iudipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 108 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:24 AM To: McLeanMatthew Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you, Matt. Have the residents been informed as well? Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator County Commissioner Andy Solis District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6946 Sent from my iPhone From: McLeanMatthew<matthewmclean@colliergov.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:02 AM Subject: RE: FW: Request for Immediate Notification To: GoodnerAngela<angelagoodner@colliergov.net> Angela, The Cityview portal issue has been resolved. You should be able to download any of the associated documents from the public portal. If you need additional information, please let me know. Thanks. Cor County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: GoodnerAngelaOn Behalf Of SolisAndy Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:45 PM To: McLeanMatthew<McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: 109 Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletterHERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>;ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressv@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net;brad@taxis-usa.com; direedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<iamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>;rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er County Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 110 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA)application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal linkhttp://cvportal.colliergov.net/CitvViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM 111 To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;Casalanguida Nick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify youif/when a request for amendments to SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@aigmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdianeagmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane c(�.gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkisonacolliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head 112 Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdianeagmail.com judipalavaaol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 113 GoodnerAngela From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:02 AM To: GoodnerAngela Subject: RE: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Angela, The Cityview portal issue has been resolved. You should be able to download any of the associated documents from the public portal. If you need additional information, please let me know. Thanks. Co er Coxnty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: GoodnerAngela On Behalf Of SolisAndy Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:45 PM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! 114 From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com;dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com; direedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er CcnantY Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 115 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo <LeoOchs@col liergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 112017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. 116 r o er C°xnty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguidac colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. 117 Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdianeOgmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(o�gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdianegmail.com 402 580-1545 118 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison(u colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head Co er Co1411ty Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi 119 Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalav a(�aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 120 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Monday, May 15,2017 10:19 AM To: GoodnerAngela Subject: Kalea bay Dear Mr. Wood, Thank you for your email. As I have told Diane Rupnow and Judy Palay, I understand the concerns regarding the Kalea Bay development and the settlement agreement. For your information, I have not received any pressure from the developer or anyone else in regards to amending the settlement agreement. In fact, other than county staff(at Diane Rupnow and Judy Palay's request) and Brad Schiffer, I have not spoken to anyone other than Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay about Kalea Bay. I am also not aware that the developer has submitted any applications to change what is planned for the golf course property. I have asked staff to monitor the construction of the towers and the golf course very closely to ensure that the developer is only building what is allowed by the permits and the settlement agreement. Again,thank you for the email and I hope this clarifies where things stand. Andy Solis,Esq. Collier County Commissioner, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6946 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:jcdixiew@comcast.net[mailto jcdixiew@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 1:49 PM To: SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Dear Commissioner Solis; My name is Joe Wood and I am a constituent of yours and have lived at 669 Mainsail Place in Tarpon Cove since 2004. My property abuts the east side of the Cocohatchee Bay property,previously identified as the Kinsale Golf Course, separated only by the canal. I am writing you because I am becoming aware that there that there is increasing pressure on you to re-open the Cocohatchee Bay settlement that was reached on this property in 2008 and 2015 keeping the land east of Vanderbilt Dr. as a preserve or golf course. The developer at the time was given more units (taller towers) on the west side of Vanderbilt Dr in lieu of putting buildings on this land. I represent many people in my neighborhood in asking you not to allow this settlement to be 121 re-opened. I have been in many meetings with your predecessors,Frank Halas and Georgia Hiller, to get it to stay where it is at. Work is proceeding on this almost daily, and while it is supposedly permitted to be a golf course, clear cutting is taking place that does not seem consistent with any golf course that I've ever been on. I contacted code compliance, and they said the clearing is approved, but would not confirm that the project was indeed a golf course. Please help us on this where you can. Joe Wood,President Cayman HOA at Tarpon Cove 239-593-5967 Angela Goodner,Executive Coordinator County Commissioner Andy Solis District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6946 Sent from my iPhone 122 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 9:53 AM To: GoodnerAngela Subject: FW: Kalea Bay Towers Site Development Attachments: Scan0018.jpg Hey,Andy—do you want me to share the letter from staff with this couple? Do you want to reply yourself,and then I'll have a template to use when other people respond about the approval? Let me know,thanks! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From: Ross Baiera [mailto:rjbaiera06@gmail.com] Sent:Saturday, May 13, 2017 11:56 AM To:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; BurtSanders@colliergov.net; TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Towers Site Development Commissioners, Please read the attachment. We are presently not at our Florida residence and can't attend the local hearings. Thank you. Ross J. Baiera for Ross J. and Patricia A. Baiera 123 GoodnerAngela From: U Fremeau <bljfremeau@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 11:40 AM To: SolisAndy Subject: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Mr. Solis: We understand that the developer of the land east of Vanderbilt Dr. is trying to reopen the settlement that was reached in 2008 and again in 2015. At that time the developer was given more units (taller towers) on the west side, in lieu of putting buildings on the east side (where a golf course) was originally planned. They are working on this land and clearing it, but it sure doesn't seem like it is for a golf course. Please, please do not let them reopen this settlement. Thank you for your time. Harold and Linda Fremeau 656 Mainsail Place 124 GoodnerAngela From: Ross Baiera <rjbaiera06@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 11:56 AM To: SolisAndy; FialaDonna; BurtSanders@colliergov.net;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Towers Site Development Attachments: Scan0018jpg Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Commissioners, Please read the attachment. We are presently not at our Florida residence and can't attend the local hearings. Thank you. Ross J. Baiera for Ross J. and Patricia A. Baiera 125 11 Bluebill Ave., Unit 706 Naples, Florida 34108 May 8, 2017 TO: Board of Collier County Commissioners FROM: Ross J. and Patricia A. Baiera When is enough,enough? The proposed alterations to the Site Development Plan for Kalea Bay Towers further strain the already deteriorating landscape of North Naples. Even without the alterations,alterations that do not follow Collier County Building Codes and the Cocohatchee PUD Settlement Agreement, the Kalea Bay Towers project is putting an enormous strain on the infrastructure and traffic that is crippling and reducing the quality of life in Naples in general and in North Naples in particular. As voters and tax payers,we are asking the Board of Collier County Commissioners to oppose these alterations, which simply go beyond what is reasonable building separation and size for the area. It is our hope that the Commissioners will establish a vision for Naples that will make this generation and future generations enjoy living, working and recreating in Naples, Florida. 14Z1-4.e-t..44s Ck°( Ross J. Baiera Patricia A. Baiera GoodnerAngela From: CityViewSupport Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 5:51 PM To: ScottChris; CityViewSupport; McLean Matthew;JudiPalay@aol.com; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Cc: McLeanMatthew; KovenskyKenneth; FrenchJames; SolisAndy; GoodnerAngela; ClevelandSimon Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification - Addressed Importance: High Good Evening, Please be advised we have resolved the issue reported with this Approved Site Plan for Kalea Bay Project. Furthermore, please note the"Date Uploaded" date change which now reflects 5/12/2017 as reflected in the screen shots below as well as a view of the visible file from our CityView Web Portal. NOTE: Rotate view after opening document. Sorry for any inconvenience and the additional delay to view this online document. Hope you have a great weekend... © Thank You, Cheryl L. Soter Principal Planner/Support CityView Project Operations & Regulatory Management Division Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone 239-252-2937 - Fax 239-252-6368 cherylsoter@colliergov.net Visit our Website at: WWW.COLLIER6OV.NET r Co er C°14nty Upcoming Out of Office Dates: 126 .Documents&Images Date Uploaded Document Name 08/31/2016 submittal 1- Letter from(hns Scott Kalea Bay Revisions t©Phases 2-6 AR-5284.odf) 09/28/2016 Affidavit of Authorizauon/Ev'dence of Author=ty(Subrn!ttal 1 - Kale./Bar Affidavit of Authonzation-lay Westendorf-Prepared.pdf1 03/22/2017 Submittal 3• Cotohatchet Bay PUO Monitoring na Schedule-Revtsed,pdfl 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 -Kalga at$ianed Fee.worktheet.04f) 09/06/2016 Cover Letter/Narrative Statement(Submittal 1 -Kalea Bay Cover letter for SOPA Ph,,_ Pn;.,.r.•-..Fi 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Addressing Checklist approval•pdfj 09/21/2016 4licat on Form ISubmrtlal_l.Kalea Sty Phase 2-6.5DPA Apobc 1- Prenared.Atlfj 09/26/2016 Affidavit of Authorization/Evidence of Authority(Sub/metal 1 -Ka1ea Bay Affidavit of Authorization- Karen B•istloo-Preaared.odfl 08/31/2016 utomittal 1 - Kajea Bay Enviro TF wed 07-2016-odil 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Fire Flow Test.pdfl 09!06!2016 Ar s r. ..x•. Pl.n .rnittal - Kalea Bay Tower 5 Eittenor Elevations- Prepared.odf) 04/25'2016 warranty Deed/Proof qf Ownership(5u 't9: -tal_taitAtautiaisel deed OR 2904 PG 0172-Preoared.odfl 09/06/2016 Ar nh -s- .1 r.,,n PI.n .•u r.1 - K T. -.4 1 ..n P- Pr ordodf3 09/26!2016 Ar ho•r.r r.l t,=.n PI-n .mi ,.I -K:1 - T •x E .1 ,:t f1.:r Pi n• - PrtL>3rtS'00} 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Engineering Check;!»st 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Listed Species 12/15/2016 _.vi ,1 - :i .!_op, .4'_K%l ; - n.rRr '• ?f 08/31/2016 Submittal 1,-i cghatch t Bay PUD 2000-88 se`,tiement aareemenf.Ddfl 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - TIS 08/31/2015 mittal 1 -Water meter Elting Form 04!2812016 A•' : ..-crt.t♦ .at.i.t/K':t)lII4SsHall '1Oµµ I4,II.`{i5l!0 7 ly,i 11479. a a F - , fill t : If,1 i ir"G ft +r r k. ls,j 4 411, r ►5 I '41g- , 1 b II I.e� :a l ;1 1 ! . � T � Hit = II , .01 1Ii1. ,:1 i'11 ;Ii 1 WC-:, - 1 .. ,1 lith 1 ' # 1 n it 1 ,-?, iiiii 1, 'mil 111, li i ..,,.. From:ScottChris Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:54 PM To: CityViewSupport<CityViewSupport@colliergov.net> Cc: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Importance: High PL20160002242: When trying to open the approved site plan (5/11/2017)through the webportal,the following error message occurs. It works when I open directly through CityView, but we have Commissioners and interested members of the public that need to access this. Can you please see what is wrong and update as soon as possible?This is a high priority. Please advise when resolved.Thanks. 128 - Inspections - Documents&Images Date Uploaded Document Name 08/31/2016 submittal 1- Letter from Chris Scott Kalea Bay Revisions to Phases 2-6 AR-5284 09/28/2016 Affidavit of Authorization/Evidence of Authority (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Affidav Authorization -Jay Westendorf- Prepared.odf) 03/22/2017 Submittal 3 - Cocohatchee Bay PUD Monitoring Schedule - Revised.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Signed Fee Worksheet.pdf) 09/06/2026 Cover Letter/Narrative Statement(Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Cover letter for SDP Phase 2-6 - Prepared.pdfi 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Addressing Checklist approval.pdf) 09/21/2016 Application Form (Submittal 1 Kalea Bay Phase 2-6 SDPA Application - Preparec 09/26/2016 Affidavit of Authorization/Evidence of Authority (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Affidav Authorization - Karen Bishop - Prepared.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Enviro TE Updated 07-2016.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Fire Flow Test .pdf) 09/06/2016 Architectural Design Plan (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Tower 5 Exterior Elevations- Prepared.pdf) 09/26/2016 Warranty Deed/Proof of Ownership (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay West parcel deed ( 2904 PG 0172- Prepared.pdf) 09/06/2026 Architectural Design Plan (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Towers 2-4 Elevations SDP- Prepared.pdf) 04/26/2016 Architectural Design Plan (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Towers 2- 5 Typical Floor Pla Prepared.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Engineering Checklist 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Listed Species 12/15/2016 Submittal 2 - PL20160002242 Kalea2-6 EmirRpt 2016-1202.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Cocohatchee Bay PUD 2000-88 settlement agreement.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 -TIS 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Water Meter Sizing Form 09/28/2016 Conservation Easement Documents (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay SFWM Release of Conservation Easement - Prepared.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Cocohatchee Bay USACOE Permit 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay phase 2-6 Preserve Plan.pdfl 12/15/2016 Submittal 2 - Kalea Bay 2-6 SFWM 160119-22 Permit.pdfl 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Cocohatchee Bay PUD 2015 Monitoring Report.pdf) 09/21/2016 Boundary and Topo (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bndv&Topo Sheets 1 through 5 cert- Prepared.pdf) 05111/2017 APPROVED Site Plan (Submittal 4- P120160002242 KaleaCivi103 2017-0504-i 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf) 09/01/2016 Incomplete Submittal Letter(INC) 09/01/2016 Incomplete Submittal Letter(INC) 05/11/2017 APPROVED Landscape/Irrigation Plans(Submittal 3 - P120160002242 Kalea Ba} Landscape Plans - May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf1 09/02/2016 Incomplete Submittal Letter(INC) 09/06/2016 Submittal 1 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Landscape Plans 09/06/2016 Submittal 1 - Opinion of Probable Cost- Engineering &Utitilies 09/06/2016 PL Payment Slip 09/06/2016 Receipt for transaction: 2016-056747 09/06/2016 Check Overage Form (19/7A/7(11 F 1nciiffiripnry I Atter(TNSF) 129 http:,'tcvportal.colliergov.netfCityViewWebfPlanning;GetFile;J4O36643 P - , Collier County GMD Pu' FLORIDA • Sion In f Register Portal Home Property Search Portal Help Sorry, an error occurred while processing your request. Portal Home Links Home Property Search Pay Fees Permit Forms Planning Forms E-Permitting Guides Address Growth Management Division - Planning and Regulation 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone. (239) 252-2400 Powered by CityView Christopher 0.Scott,AICP, LEED-AP Planning Manager-Development Review 239.252.2460 From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:48 PM To: RosenblumBrett<BrettRosenblum@colliergov.net>; ScottChris<ChrisScottc colliergov.net>; IsonSara <SaralsonPcolliergov.net> Subject: Fwd: Request for Immediate Notification Please see what the issues with the files update and advise when they are visible. May need help fromCV support. Sent from my iPhone 130 Begin forwarded message: From: SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Date: May 12, 2017 at 3:45:23 PM EDT To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com;direedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguIdaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, 131 Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er Corsnty Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: Klatzkowleff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, 132 Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4— PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 112017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. r Comity Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director- Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 133 From: OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock <Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when 134 SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(�Dgmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdianeqmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@a,colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head 135 Co er Co1411I ty Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock <Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." 136 I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane(cr�gmail.com judipalayt?a.aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 137 GoodnerAngela From: ScottChris Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 4:03 PM To: McLeanMatthew; RosenblumBrett; !sonSara Cc: SolisAndy Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Attachments: APPROVED Site Plan (Submittal 4) PL20160002242 KaleaCivi103_2017-0504 - May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf There appears to be an issue with the CityView Webportal. I've asked CityView Support to fix the issue and advise once complete. I've attached the approved Site Plan for reference—it's a large file(32MB). Christopher 0.Scott,AICP, LEED-AP Planning Manager-Development Review 239.252.2460 From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:48 PM To: RosenblumBrett<BrettRosenblum@colliergov.net>; ScottChris <ChrisScott@colliergov.net>; IsonSara <Saralson@colliergov.net> Subject: Fwd: Request for Immediate Notification Please see what the issues with the files update and advise when they are visible. May need help fromCV support. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: SolisAndy <AndySolis(a�colliergov.net> Date: May 12, 2017 at 3:45:23 PM EDT To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean(a�colliergov.net> Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! 138 From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com;direedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<iamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence, associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er C aunty Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive 139 Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4— PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 112017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. 140 Co er County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director- Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock <Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, 141 As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; Strain Mark; BosiMichael; McLean Matthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a gmail.com 142 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdianeCa)gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkisonacolliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head C,o r Caurity Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: Klatzkowieff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock <Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@kmail.com>;Carl Stendahi <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron 143 <direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay ruonowdiane(a.amail.com iudipalayna.aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 144 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:45 PM To: McLeanMatthew Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com;dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com; djreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, 145 Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er County Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, 146 Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA)application P120160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er Cminty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 147 From: OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc:KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalavPaol.com>;SolisAndy <AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<lamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@>gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to 148 acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdianeqmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdianena gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@collierqov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head C.D er County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) 149 www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLean Matthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane(cr�gmail.com judipalay(a aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 150 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 151 GoodnerAngela From: JudiPalay@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew; ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com; djreedcaron@icloud.com Cc: SolisAndy; OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick; KlatzkowJeff; StrainMark; FrenchJames; BosiMichael; Dwight E. Brock; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence, associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Calker Comity Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive 152 Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: Klatzkowleff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivi103_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 112017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. 153 Co er Co"ty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. 154 Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 155 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison,P.E. Department Head COCciutitY Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;Andysolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison 156 Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 157 GoodnerAngela From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:30 AM To: Ralf Brookes; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay Cc: SolisAndy; OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick; KlatzkowJeff; StrainMark; FrenchJames; BosiMichael; Dwight E. Brock; Diane Rupnow Subject: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Attachments: SDP Approval Letter.pdf; Exhibit A- 13 items (Applicant O&M).pdf; Util Checklist- 10-06-2006 new new checklist.pdf; Memorandum- Kalea Bay(4-28-17).pdf Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence, associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo <Leoochs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist 158 All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CitvViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From: OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl<cps2004t comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy<AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification 159 On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.corn 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdianec gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison(aiicolliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Pa lay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head Co er County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064 (Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow(«lcolliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchsPcolliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael 160 <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner,Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director,Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County"staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 161 GoodnerAngela From: OchsLeo Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:22 PM To: GoodnerAngela Subject: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Attachments: SDP Approval Letter.pdf; Exhibit A- 13 items (Applicant O&M).pdf; Util Checklist - 10-06-2006 new new checklist.pdf; Memorandum- Kalea Bay(4-28-17).pdf FYI Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow Cc: KlatzkowJeff; BosiMichael; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick; OchsLeo Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. Cofer County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 163 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From: OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>; WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@Rmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff" I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupn owdi ane(af umai I.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>wrote: 164 Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Pa lay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison,P.E. Department Head et' Cou34ty Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkowPcolliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean 165 Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County"staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request. do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing. 166 GoodnerAngela From: OchsLeo Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 3:41 PM To: SolisAndy Cc: KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick Subject: FW: Kalea Bay SDPA approval PL20160002242 Attachments: SDP Approval Letter.pdf; Exhibit A - 13 items (Applicant O&M).pdf; Util Checklist- 10-06-2006 new new checklist.pdf; Memorandum- Kalea Bay(4-28-17).pdf Importance: High Commissioner, Attached please find the just released staff approval of the latest Kalea Bay SDP Amendment application. Your constituents will soon have knowledge as well. We can discuss further at your convenience. Thanks. VR, Leo Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 3:29 PM To: CasalanguidaNick Cc: OchsLeo; KlatzkowJeff; FrenchJames; BosiMichael; ScottChris Subject: Kalea Bay SDPA approval PL20160002242 Importance: High Nick, Today,the Development Review Division approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is the memorandum for Kalea Bay. If you need additional information, please let me know. 167 Ca er C4314 rcty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing. 168 GoodnerAngela Subject: Mark Strain Location: BCC Conference Room, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34112 Start: Fri 5/5/2017 1:30 PM End: Fri 5/5/2017 2:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndy Required Attendees: Mark P. Strain (markstrain@colliergov.net); Andrew I. Solis(ASolis@cohenlaw.com) Categories: Commission Chambers Kalea Bay review 169 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Tuesday,April 18,2017 1:33 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Bentley Village topics, per Frank Halas • Traffic—especially Immokalee Rd and 41 • Bridge project—still! He says people ask him all the time when Vanderbilt Drive will be open again (and he seemed flabbergasted when I said it would be more than a year) • Kalea Bay • What is the potential build-out for Collier County? He mentioned a UF study that suggested 1 million. I will see if I can find that. He said he would mention more to you when he saw you this afternoon! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax:239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 170 GoodnerAngela From: JudiPalay@aol.com Sent: Friday,April 14, 2017 6:27 PM To: SolisAndy; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Cc: GoodnerAngela;jikisoc@gmail.com; nancyvstraus@gmail.com; ngh0031@aol.com; ssnyder2@columbus.rr.com Subject: Re:April 11th BCC Meeting Thank you. Will look forward to your response. If we can answer any questions or fill in any gaps, please feel free to let us know. just a note to tell you that our group also includes members of 10 or so communities in this Cocohatchee Bay area also affected by this. Happy reading! Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 4/14/2017 6:21:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, AndySolis@colliergov.net writes: Dear Glen Eden Owners, Thank you for your emails. It was unfortunate that Judy and the rest of the group were not allowed to speak their mind at the meeting on Tuesday. As you will remember, I argued the point with the County Attorney and the Chairman. The County Attorney advised the Chairman not to allow the discussion to proceed and the Chairman relied on that advice. I do not necessarily agree with that opinion but had to respect that the Chairman has the gavel and runs the meeting. I understand your concern regarding changes to the SDP's and I have asked for a full review of where the current SDP applications stand, how decisions are being made, and whether the terms of the Settlement Agreement are being considered in that process. I spoke at length with Brad Schiffer this morning regarding the SDP approval issues and have advised him of this. I have also requested and been provided the transcripts relating to the litigation with the developer and approval of the Settlement Agreement. It is over 800 pages in length. I will be reviewing this over the weekend to understand the history of and intent behind the Settlement Agreement. I will let all of you know next week what I have found out. Have a good weekend. Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County Commissioner, District 2 171 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6946 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 5:41 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: April 11th BCC Meeting Dear Commissioner Solis, It was disappointing that we were not allowed to speak at the BCC meeting yesterday. We hosted an informational meeting at our clubhouse April 2nd and 91 constituents from 10 residential communities were in attendance.We decided collectively to attend the BCC meeting to ask for a public hearing.We want this put on a BCC agenda so what has happened with Kalea Bay's Building 1 will not also happen with Buildings 2--5. Building 1 is already built and County staff made decisions they should not have made. Unfortunately, those bad decisions can't be fixed because the building is almost finished. Now there is an amendment under review by County "staff"for Buildings 2--5. More bad decisions are going to be finalized and approved.We want the Commissioners to tell County Staff to NOT approve that amendment. We think this should be discussed among Commissioners WITH the community BEFORE the amendment is approved. We went to the April 11th BCC meeting to inform our County Commissioners that terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement have been violated. 172 Paragraph 2 states ". . .This Agreement and Release expressly states the acceptable deviation in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control. County "staff" allowed the Building 1 SDP to be changed making the width of that building and all the other buildings to be increased 50'from 260'to 310'. That substantial change should have been done with the same formalities as the Settlement Agreement and gone to the BCC for approval. Paragraph 4 states that the County will expedite the review of three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. Those SDP's gave detailed descriptions of the buildings at Kalea Bay so that County staff, Commissioners and neighbors who are stakeholders in the final result could envision what the development would look like. County"staff" changed Building 1 SDP and allowed Building 1 to be slid one-third closer to Aqua, reducing the buffer from 166'to 106' That is a substantial change to the SDP approved in the Settlement Agreement and that change request should have gone to you, the BCC. The County "staff" had already absurdly interpreted a footnote in the PUD to enable the developer to put these buildings closer together than 200 feet--the minimum building separation between buildings 200' tall Only recently did we discover that the approved SDP had the following distances between buildings: 153', 126', 127' and 341'. There was supposed to be a lake between buildings 4 and 5 making the 341' distance, BUT the SDP has been changed by county staff and that lake has been removed.Those distances between buildings were shown in a depiction and would have required an observer to use a scale to figure out--pretty deceptive! NOW, since County " staff' has removed the lake and allowed the buildings to be 50'wider,the distances between those massive towers will be: 109', 165', 100' and 100'. We object to having those buildings that close together making what will appear like a wall of concrete blocking our western horizon FOREVER! We feel that County"staff" should not have autonomous authority and unlimited discretion to reduce building separations as much as the developer wants as long as the buildings have common architectural theme and are skewed.Whoever approved this should be held accountable and not remain anonymous! 173 We object to County " staff" being allowed to make decisions that make drastic changes to SDPs that were approved in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement. The County Attorney says that we have to wait until the amendment for Buildings 2--5 is approved and then file an Administrative Appeal which will cost us over$2,000 to file plus attorney fees. Why should citizens have to pay over$2,000 to get County Commissioners to review County "staff" decisions? Over$900 of the required fees are for noticing the public.Why should we have to pay to notice ourselves?? Clearly you, the highest governing body in Collier County, have been circumvented and deprived of information. How can you be self-correcting and "right a wrong" if information is kept from you? We ask that the Board of County Commissioners enforce the terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 174 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 5:54 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Hey,Andy: Here is what I wrote this afternoon to Diane Rupnow—I had sent a shorter version to everyone else who wrote you yesterday: Thank you for your email and detailed list of concerns. Commissioner Solis asked me to let you know that he is connecting with the County Attorney to explore what is the best option for you and your group of concerned neighbors. Also,Andy has packed up all the minutes and agreements for a little light reading over the weekend. We will be in touch as we get more guidance and certainty on that process. Let me know if you have any questions in the meantime, and, as always,thank you for being an engaged citizen. Here are the email addresses for each of the people who have contacted you since the meeting Tuesday on Kalea Bay: jikisoc@gmail.com, judipalay@aol.com, nancyvstraus@gmail.com, ngh0031@aol.com, ssnyder2@columbus.rr.com, rupnowdiane@gmail.com, Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 175 GoodnerAngela From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Friday,April 14, 2017 12:04 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: FW:Wed pm-- Regarding Kalea Bay As discussed. Jeffrey A.Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239)252-2614 From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Thursday,April 13, 2017 7:34 AM To: 'JudiPalay@aol.com' Subject: RE: Wed pm--Regarding Kalea Bay Ms. Palay: The Public Comment portion of the agenda is entitled"Public Comments on General Topics Not on the Current or Future Agenda." The purpose of this portion of the agenda is to allow the public to comment on anything they wish except matters that are on, or will be on,the Board's agenda. I fully expect this matter will be on a future Board agenda. At this point in time the Site Development Plan is still under review by staff.No decision has been made. If and when the Site Development Plan is approved by staff the community will be notified, at which point if there is any objection the matter can be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. Having speakers comment on this process before approval of the Site Development Plan is finalized is contrary to the procedure, is unfair to the Developer, and could ultimately lead to a very poor result in Court for both the • County and the community. You are of course free to speak to any of the Commissioners in private about your concern. As an aside I was intimately involved in all aspects of the Settlement Agreement, and I can assure you that if and when the Site Development Plan is finalized, it will be fully consistent with that Agreement. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239)252-2614 From: JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday,April 12, 2017 6:26 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow(a),colliergov.net> Subject: Wed pm--Regarding Kalea Bay Dear Attorney Klatzkow, 176 Yesterday, you blocked more than a dozen Collier County residents from speaking to our commissioners. They wished to alert them to changes that were made to Kalea Bay Building one-- and since no one from the community was noticed re the changes,those changes are forever. And, now, since no one objected to those, you know that the same will be expected for buildings 2-5. It seems that we citizens are not playing on the same field as this developer. While you may not wish to tangle with him, he is taking advantage of us. We have to live the consequences of his actions. As I said yesterday,this Agreement is not a great one, but we are abiding by its stipulations and so must he. It states that he will not sue the county commissioners but you are allowing him to make us the targets and at an unnecessary expense to us when our role is not that of the enforcer of said Agreement. We are the public who are supposed to be protected. Our elected officials are supposed to know, follow and ensure that the rules are followed. When the commissioners are deliberately circumvented and are unaware of the deviations, we have a right to tell them. Building one was not on the agenda and will never be. PLease let me know how you intend to rectify yesterday's hurt to our Cocohatchee Bay residents. I feel strongly that we have been "injured" by a decision that should not have been made. Thank you- Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 177 GoodnerAngela From: Nancy Straus <nancyvstraus@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 10:11 AM To: Sol i sA n d rew Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Commissioner Solis, We live at 14592 Glen Eden Drive Naples. We have a lovely, peaceful, natural sense of place. The Kalea Bay development is in many ways altering that sense of place and creating a Miami Beach out of Vanderbilt Drive. Please drive here and see for yourself what 5 buildings 100 feet apart will create. Please Commissioner,we urge you to tell the County Planning staff to uphold the settlement agreement containing the approved site development on Kalea Bay.Why are we waiting for the new changes to be approved by county planning staff before we can move on? We urge you to take a look and see what a wall of concrete condos will do to lovely Vanderbilt Drive! Thank you Nancy Straus nancyvstraus@gmail.com 178 GoodnerAngela From: Ngh0031 <ngh0031@aol.com> Sent: Thursday,April 13, 2017 8:56 AM To: SolisAndrew Subject: KALEA BAY SDPA Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed I reside in Glen Eden on the Lakes. The Kalea Bay project is under construction on Vanderbilt Drive in North Naples, with the first tower almost complete and the remaining four towers to be built. A Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) is currently under review by Collier Planning, showing buildings with a separation between buildings that would be one-half the required minimum distance (i.e., a separation of 100 feet measured between towers, and 72 feet measured between parking structures). It is also our understanding that the first tower is at least 50 feet wider than the approved SDP. If the remaining towers were to be built as proposed in the SDPA, the results would be a huge concrete barrier to light and air and view. On April 11th, a group of concerned citizens living in the Vanderbilt Drive area attended a Board of County Commissioners meeting to express concerns over these proposed revisions to the approved plans. Sixteen residents signed up to speak during the Public Comment portion of the meeting. After hearing the first speaker, the County Attorney advised the Board that no further public comments on this issue should be allowed. The rationale given was that procedure required that the Site Development Plan Amendment be approved by staff, after which an administrative appeal could be filed. In our opinion, a review and decision on the Site Development Plan Amendment as submitted should not be left solely to staff, but should be considered in a public hearing before the full Board of County Commissioners to allow input and discussion from all parties. These changes are significant, impactful and would be detrimental to all aspects of this area of Vanderbilt drive. We respectfully ask that a public hearing on this issue be held. Henry & Barbara Taylor 14599 Glen Eden Drive Naples, Fl. 34110 179 GoodnerAngela From: JudiPalay@aol.com Sent: Wednesday,April 12, 2017 11:04 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Wed pm-- Regarding Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed I wanted you to know the truth re our attempt to speak at the Open Session. Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 From: JudiPalay@aol.com To: JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net Sent: 4/12/2017 6:25:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: Wed pm--Regarding Kalea Bay Dear Attorney Klatzkow, Yesterday, you blocked more than a dozen Collier County residents from speaking to our commissioners. They wished to alert them to changes that were made to Kalea Bay Building one-- and since no one from the community was noticed re the changes, those changes are forever. And, now, since no one objected to those, you know that the same will be expected for buildings 2-5. It seems that we citizens are not playing on the same field as this developer. While you may not wish to tangle with him, he is taking advantage of us. We have to live the consequences of his actions. As I said yesterday, this Agreement is not a great one, but we are abiding by its stipulations and so must he. It states that he will not sue the county commissioners but you are allowing him to make us the targets and at an unnecessary expense to us when our role is not that of the enforcer of said Agreement. We are the public who are supposed to be protected. Our elected officials are supposed to know, follow and ensure that the rules are followed. When the commissioners are deliberately circumvented and are unaware of the deviations, we have a right to tell them. Building one was not on the agenda and will never be. PLease let me know how you intend to rectify yesterday's hurt to our Cocohatchee Bay residents. I feel strongly that we have been "injured" by a decision that should not have been made. Thank you- Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 180 GoodnerAngela From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,April 12, 2017 5:41 PM To: S of i sAnd rew Subject: April 11th BCC Meeting Dear Commissioner Solis, It was disappointing that we were not allowed to speak at the BCC meeting yesterday. We hosted an informational meeting at our clubhouse April 2nd and 91 constituents from 10 residential communities were in attendance. We decided collectively to attend the BCC meeting to ask for a public hearing. We want this put on a BCC agenda so what has happened with Kalea Bay's Building 1 will not also happen with Buildings 2--5. Building 1 is already built and County staff made decisions they should not have made. Unfortunately, those bad decisions can't be fixed because the building is almost finished. Now there is an amendment under review by County "staff' for Buildings 2--5. More bad decisions are going to be finalized and approved. We want the Commissioners to tell County Staff to NOT approve that amendment. We think this should be discussed among Commissioners WITH the community BEFORE the amendment is approved. We went to the April 11th BCC meeting to inform our County Commissioners that terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement have been violated. Paragraph 2 states ". . .This Agreement and Release expressly states the acceptable deviation in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control. County "staff" allowed the Building 1 SDP to be changed making the width of that building and all the other buildings to be increased 50' from 260' to 310'. That substantial change should have been done with the same formalities as the Settlement Agreement and pone to the BCC for approval. Paragraph 4 states that the County will expedite the review of three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. Those SDP's gave detailed descriptions of the buildings at Kalea Bay so that County staff, Commissioners and neighbors who are stakeholders in the final result could envision what the development would look like. County "staff" changed Building 1 SDP and allowed Building 1 to be slid one-third closer to Aqua, reducing the buffer from 166' to 106' That is a substantial change to the SDP approved in the Settlement Agreement and that change request should have gone to you, the BCC. 181 The County "staff' had already absurdly interpreted a footnote in the PUD to enable the developer to put these buildings closer together than 200 feet-- the minimum building separation between buildings 200' tall Only recently did we discover that the approved SDP had the following distances between buildings: 153', 126', 127' and 341'. There was supposed to be a lake between buildings 4 and 5 making the 341' distance, BUT the SDP has been changed by county staff and that lake has been removed. Those distances between buildings were shown in a depiction and would have required an observer to use a scale to figure out--pretty deceptive! NOW, since County " staff' has removed the lake and allowed the buildings to be 50' wider, the distances between those massive towers will be: 109', 165', 100' and 100'. We object to having those buildings that close together making what will appear like a wall of concrete blocking our western horizon FOREVER! We feel that County "staff' should not have autonomous authority and unlimited discretion to reduce building separations as much as the developer wants as long as the buildings have common architectural theme and are skewed. Whoever approved this should be held accountable and not remain anonymous! We object to County " staff' being allowed to make decisions that make drastic changes to SDPs that were approved in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement. The County Attorney says that we have to wait until the amendment for Buildings 2--5 is approved and then file an Administrative Appeal which will cost us over$2,000 to file plus attorney fees. Why should citizens have to pay over$2,000 to get County Commissioners to review County "staff' decisions? Over$900 of the required fees are for noticing the public. Why should we have to pay to notice ourselves?? Clearly you, the highest governing body in Collier County, have been circumvented and deprived of information. How can you be self-correcting and "right a wrong" if information is kept from you? We ask that the Board of County Commissioners enforce the terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement. 182 GoodnerAngela From: Jim & Kitty Shaw <jikisoc@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,April 12,2017 11:34 AM To: SolisAndrew; GoodnerAngela Subject: Kalea Bay Towers Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed To:Andy Solis During the Public Comment portion of the April 11 BCC meeting,a graphical depiction was presented showing a to-scale representation of the height,width and spacing of the proposed five towers at Kalea Bay.When I saw that depiction,a red flag popped up in my mind.During my engineering career,I worked with a design team creating complex medical diagnostic systems.Part of the development process,required by FDA,is called"Hazard Analysis".During HA,a multi-discipline team picks apart the entire system design looking for hidden,unintended consequences that could lead to disastrous events.This is a lengthy,rigorous and painful process,but extremely effective.It caused me to wonder if this process was considered when the towers became taller,wider and closer together. Anyone who has walked the streets of NY City on a windy day can attest to the"wind tunnel effect".This occurs when moving air hits tall, closely spaced buildings and is funneled through the space between the buildings,increasing wind velocity and causing turbulence.This attached article explains wind tunnel effect in greater detail:http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/the-pulse/79275-the-science-of- wind-tunnels-where-and-why-those-harsh-winds-strike-Given that we are situated in an area prone to tropical storms with high wind velocities,and the tower"wall"faces the brunt of powerful on-shore winds,and given that many Kalea Bay residents may have mobility challenges,the recent"tweaks"to buildings'width and separation may have unintentionally created a potential future hazard to many tower residents. I am not aware of any tower complex in the Naples area with building dimensions and spacing similar to that of the Kalea Bay plan.If there are no comparable complexes from which to draw conclusions as to wind safety,and there is no study to show the recent plan changes do not create a hazard,should the CCB then require the developer to conduct a wind effect study?After all,if the current development plan is approved without such a study,and a wind-caused injury occurs,does the County share in the responsibility for that injury? Thank you, James D Shaw 841 Carrick Bend Cir.#201 Naples,FL 34110 Other relevant link:http://www.iawe.org/Proceedings/5EACWE/092.pdf 184 GoodnerAngela From: Susan Snyder <ssnyder2@columbus.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 10:02 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Today's Commissioners' Meeting Dear Commissioner Solis, I live in District 2 and voted for you, with the hope that you would represent those of us who live in your district. I am deeply disturbed that at the Collier County Commissioners meeting today (April 11, 2017), the United States Constitutional right, as described in the First Amendment (ie. Freedom of Speech), was denied by county leaders to sixteen persons who live in District 2. The agenda item for which we intended to participate was specifically titled, "Public Comments on General Topics Not On The Current Or Future Agenda." Our topic was not on today's agenda, and to our knowledge it is not scheduled to be included on a future agenda. In fact, the purpose of our wanting to speak today was to request that our concern be added to a future agenda. Below is the exact verbiage I intended to use today, had I been allowed to speak. "Good morning Commissioners. For the record, my name is Susan Snyder and I am a registered voter in Collier County. My address is 17 Bluebill Ave, which is located at the north end of Vanderbilt Beach. I've been an active member of the community for 17 years and have closely followed development in the county. My concern today is that I've learned County Commissioners have not been informed by County staff of deviations from the Site Development Plans passed with the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement. It is the function of county staff to provide Commissioners with all the information needed to make informed administrative decisions that affect the quality of life of the citizens of Collier County. By not informing Commissioners and instead making what I consider unjustified decisions that disregard both the Cocohatchee PUD and the Site Development Plan for the Kalea Bay Towers community, staff's behavior is unethical, unprofessional, and irresponsible. The community at large will be affected by these staff decisions. I would ask Commissioners to set a date for a public hearing to discuss specifics of the Cocohatchee PUD agreement and the Site Development Plan for the Kalea Bay Towers community. Those legal documents give specific dimensions and other specifications regarding the Kalea Bay project. Twice in 2015, Lodge Abbot Associates went to Collier County Commissioners to try to reopen the settlement. The Commissioners said "No." Now it appears that this development company has gone directly to county staff and circumnavigated the Commissioners. Thank you for considering a public hearing for the community to have input." 185 GoodnerAngela From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 28,2017 6:30 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Re: Please Attend April 2nd Meeting at 4:00 Please tell Commissioner Solis that we are disappointed that he will not be able to attend Sunday's meeting. Many of his constituents will be present and the discussion will be one he should want to hear. I'm hopeful his plans change and he finds he can give us one hour. Please tell him our visitor's gate will be up starting at 3:30 in case he finds time to come. Thanks for getting back to me today as you said you would. Diane • Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane ga,gm a i l.c o m 402 580-1545 On Tue,Mar 28, 2017 at 4:39 PM, SolisAndrew<AndrewSolis@colliergov.net>wrote: Hi,Diane: Nice to talk with you this morning—I was sorry to hear about your eye trouble, but happy to hear that you've begun to mend. I had a chance to grab Andy following the commission meeting this morning and learned that he had met with staff and has some documents to review concerning the placement of the buildings. When he has completed that review,he'll send you a letter with his findings. Regarding the Sunday meeting, he regrets he is already obligated and will be unable to attend. He'll try to get his email to you before that meeting. Thanks, rest your eye now, and have a wonderful night! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 186 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdianeAgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday,March 28, 2017 12:03 PM To: SolisAndrew<AndrewSolis(aiicolliergov.net> Subject: Fwd: Please Attend April 2nd Meeting at 4:00 You were right, Angela! I am forwarding the message with the wrong address that went out 4 days ago. I'm not doing so well with impaired vision! Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Forwarded message From: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:19 PM Subject: Please Attend April 2nd Meeting at 4:00 To: AndySolice(a,colliergov.net Dear Commissioner Solis: I am asking that you attend an informational meeting regarding the Kalea Bay project and the Cocohatchee Bay Gold Course. The attached flyer has gone out to residents in Glen Eden on the Lakes and is being distributed to neighboring communities. You are our District 2 Commissioner and we would like you to represent our public interest in this matter. Please let me know if you agree to come. Thanks! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 187 GoodnerAngela From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:03 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Fwd: Please Attend April 2nd Meeting at 4:00 Attachments: Rev.April 2nd Flyer.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed You were right, Angela! I am forwarding the message with the wrong address that went out 4 days ago. I'm not doing so well with impaired vision! Diane Rupnow rupnowdianec2I gmail.com 402 580-1545 Forwarded message From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane(aiigmail.com> Date: Fri,Mar 24, 2017 at 1:19 PM Subject: Please Attend April 2nd Meeting at 4:00 To:AndySolice@colliergov.net Dear Commissioner Solis: I am asking that you attend an informational meeting regarding the Kalea Bay project and the Cocohatchee Bay Gold Course. The attached flyer has gone out to residents in Glen Eden on the Lakes and is being distributed to neighboring communities. You are our District 2 Commissioner and we would like you to represent our public interest in this matter. Please let me know if you agree to come. Thanks! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 188 GoodnerAngela From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 28,2017 12:00 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Please attend April 2nd meeting Attachments: Rev.April 2nd Flyer.docx Dear Commissioner Solis On Sunday,April 2nd at 4:00 we are hosting an informational meeting about Kalea Bay and the Golf Course parcel for Glen Eden residents. Homeowners in neighboring communities will also be attending as will our attorney, Ralf Brookes. We would like you also to attend this meeting so you can hear from constituents and provide any information you may have. Please see attached flyer. We will be setting up for this event on Saturday p.m. Please rsvp to let me know if you will attend. Thanks! Diane Rupnow Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 189 KALEA BAY TOWERS WILL HAVE A DIRECT OBSERVABLE IMPACT ON THIS ENTIRE COMMUNITY FOREVER! We have a small window of time before buildings 2 through 5 are permitted. At this time, they have not been approved. • This project does not match the Site Development Plan (SDP). • Buildings do not meet the SDP on the minimum building separation. • Buildings are now 50' wider than in the SDP. • Building 1 is 60' closer to Aqua than shown in the approved plan. We may be able to stop construction of buildings 2-5, and make them conform to Collier County building codes and the Cocohatchee PUD Settlement Agreement. • Also, come to hear the latest on the Golf Course Parcel! April 2nd (Sunday) — 4:00 p.m. Clubhouse You will want to attend this meeting at the Glen Eden Clubhouse to learn how we may be able to make the county enforce their building codes. Attorney Ralf Brooks will be there to explain our options. Diane Rupnow, Judi Palay, David Cressy and Carl Stendahl GoodnerAngela From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday, March 22,2017 7:09 AM To: SolisAndrew Subject: RE: County"staff" Absolutely, I had called a week or so ago and talked with Angela about this as well. I will call Angela this morning and arrange a time that is good for you. I have a set of plans that show graphically what is at question and it would be helpful if I could show those to you. Thanks, Mark 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: SolisAndrew Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 6:34 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Fw: County"staff' Mark, Could you please give me a call either tomorrow or Thursday to discuss the issue raised by Diane Rupnow. I would like to understand the process she is referring to. Thanks. Andy Solis, Esq. Commissioner,District 2 Collier County Board of Commissioners District Office: 239.252.8602 mobile: 239.315.6080 fax: 239.252.6946 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 3:19 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: FW: County"staff' 191 Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Thursday,March 16, 2017 10:52 AM To: 'rupnowdiane@gmail.com'<rupnowdianec ,gmail.com> Subject: FW: County"staff' Good morning,Diane—I hope you are well! I just got your email, below, forwarded to me. It seems like Andy's address wasn't quite right, so it didn't get delivered to his in-box. In any case, he is out of town this week, and will review your email next week when he returns. Thanks—have a great day, enjoying our little bit of cool weather! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:51 PM To: AndvSolice@colliergov.net Cc: SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna<DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; TaylorPenny <PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: County"staff' Building five Kalea Bay towers 310'wide and only 100' apart will have a direct and observable negative impact on all of us FOREVER. I find it troubling that important decisions are made by County"staff'with complete anonymity and;therefore,no accountability or recourse. 192 Since the separation of high-rise buildings is important to the ambience of an entire community,could we obtain a written review of the staff process to allow the administrative reduction to one half of the intended minimum separation? Also,we would like to know what staff members are responsible for the administrative review on this issue. Thank you! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@u,gmail.com 402 580-1545 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 193 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 3:20 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: FW: County"staff" Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:GoodnerAngela Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:52 AM To: 'rupnowdiane@gmail.com' Subject: FW:County"staff Good morning, Diane—I hope you are well! I just got your email, below,forwarded to me. It seems like Andy's address wasn't quite right,so it didn't get delivered to his in-box. In any case, he is out of town this week,and will review your email next week when he returns. Thanks—have a great day, enjoying our little bit of cool weather! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax:239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:51 PM To:AndySoliceCc@colliergov.net Cc:SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny <PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: County"staff" Building five Kalea Bay towers 310'wide and only 100' apart will have a direct and observable negative impact on all of us FOREVER. 194 I find it troubling that important decisions are made by County"staff'with complete anonymity and;therefore,no accountability or recourse. Since the separation of high-rise buildings is important to the ambience of an entire community,could we obtain a written review of the staff process to allow the administrative reduction to one half of the intended minimum separation? Also,we would like to know what staff members are responsible for the administrative review on this issue. Thank you! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 195 GoodnerAngela From: WilkisonDavid Sent: Thursday, March 16,2017 3:50 PM To: Diane Rupnow; KlatzkowJeff;OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew Cc: Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay, SolisAndrew; FrenchJames;CasalanguidaNick Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison,P.E. Department Head Co erg Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 239.252.6064 (Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday,March 16, 2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo ; StrainMark ; WilkisonDavid ; BosiMichael ;McLeanMatthew Cc: Ralf Brookes ; Dwight E. Brock ; David Cressy ; Carl Stendahl ; Brad Schiffer AIA ; Donna Reed Caron ; Judi Palay;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner,Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County"staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, 196 Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 197 GoodnerAngela From: WilkisonDavid Sent: Thursday, March 16,2017 3:50 PM To: Diane Rupnow; KlatzkowJeff;OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew Cc: Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy;Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay; SolisAndrew; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S. Wilkison,P.E. Department Head Co County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064 (Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo ; StrainMark ; WilkisonDavid ; BosiMichael ; McLeanMatthew Cc: Ralf Brookes ; Dwight E. Brock ;David Cressy ; Carl Stendahl ; Brad Schiffer AIA ; Donna Reed Caron ; Judi Palay ; AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director,Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, 198 Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing. 199 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:52 AM To: rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: FW: County"staff' Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Good morning, Diane—I hope you are well! I just got your email, below,forwarded to me. It seems like Andy's address wasn't quite right,so it didn't get delivered to his in-box. In any case, he is out of town this week,and will review your email next week when he returns. Thanks—have a great day,enjoying our little bit of cool weather! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:51 PM To:AndvSolice@colliergov.net Cc:SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny <PennvTavlor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: County"staff" Building five Kalea Bay towers 310' wide and only 100' apart will have a direct and observable negative impact on all of us FOREVER. I find it troubling that important decisions are made by County"staff'with complete anonymity and;therefore,no accountability or recourse. Since the separation of high-rise buildings is important to the ambience of an entire community,could we obtain a written review of the staff process to allow the administrative reduction to one half of the intended minimum separation? Also,we would like to know what staff members are responsible for the administrative review on this issue. Thank you! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdianeggmail.com 402 580-1545 200 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request; do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 201 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Friday,January 27, 2017 11:10 AM To: SolisAndrew Subject: FW:Tarpon Cove Community concerns Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:GoodnerAngela On Behalf Of SolisAndrew Sent: Friday,January 27, 2017 10:42 AM To: 'John' Subject: RE:Tarpon Cove Community concerns Hello, Mr.Ardito: Thank you for sharing your concerns with Commissioner Solis.We have heard from several of your neighbors about the Wiggins-Pass Road traffic.County staff is investigating and exploring options for how we can ameliorate the effects of the bridge replacement project on your community,and the others along Wiggins-Pass Road. I have added your name to the list of people to receive their reports. We hear your concerns and understand that this is frustrating for you and your residents.You should expect to be hearing from staff with at least some preliminary information soon. Regarding the Cocohatchee PUD clearing, I've heard from some of your neighboring communities with this same concern. My understanding is that the owner of that property is entitled to clear it in accordance with the currently allowed purpose,which is a golf course. I am asking staff to reach out to you again and answer any questions you might have about the scope of what that might entail. I hope this is helpful; please don't hesitate to call or email us whenever we can be of assistance. Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Under Florida Law.e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity,Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:John [mailto:lardit8@msn.com] Sent:Thursday,January 26, 2017 4:37 PM 202 To:SolisAndrew<AndrewSolis@colliergov.net> Subject:Tarpon Cove Community concerns Commissioner Solis, I am presently serving as the President of the Tarpon Cove Community Association and would like to address two very important concerns I and many of our residents have. The first item is the closure of Vanderbilt Road for the re-construction of two minor bridges. This project was started just at the beginning of the high season and we are told it will continue through next season into the summer of 2018. Why was this project not scheduled to begin in April of this year and then it would have only impacted one full season.The traffic situation we are now experiencing on Wiggins Pass Rd is terrible at certain times of the day, making it extremely difficult to turn left out of our community.The majority of people driving down Vanderbilt make the left on Wiggins then most of these cars are making a right turn onto Rt 41 South. With Wiggins being a single lane until you approach Germain Lexus, it backs traffic up past our entry making for a very unsafe situation. I am asking that you look into any possible plans to improve this condition, possibly re-timing the lights and allowing a greater interval for the right turns. My second concern is the Cocohatchee PUD property at the corner of Vanderbilt Dr & Wiggins Pass Rd.There is noticeable evidence of large areas being cleared in this parcel. I have been in contact with Ray Bellows in the zoning division who told me they were in compliance with the current permit, but that he was going to further check into this, I have received no additional information. Please explain what they are allowed to continue doing at that property under the guidelines that were approved. Our community is very concerned with the scope of work that is being progressing.Thank you for looking into these very important issues. Regards, John Ardito President-TCCA Master Board 973-768-8359 203 GoodnerAngela From: John <jardit8@msn.com> Sent: Thursday,January 26, 2017 4:37 PM To: Sol i sAnd rew Subject: Tarpon Cove Community concerns Commissioner Solis, I am presently serving as the President of the Tarpon Cove Community Association and would like to address two very important concerns I and many of our residents have. The first item is the closure of Vanderbilt Road for the re-construction of two minor bridges. This project was started just at the beginning of the high season and we are told it will continue through next season into the summer of 2018. Why was this project not scheduled to begin in April of this year and then it would have only impacted one full season. The traffic situation we are now experiencing on Wiggins Pass Rd is terrible at certain times of the day, making it extremely difficult to turn left out of our community.The majority of people driving down Vanderbilt make the left on Wiggins then most of these cars are making a right turn onto Rt 41 South. With Wiggins being a single lane until you approach Germain Lexus, it backs traffic up past our entry making for a very unsafe situation. I am asking that you look into any possible plans to improve this condition, possibly re-timing the lights and allowing a greater interval for the right turns. My second concern is the Cocohatchee PUD property at the corner of Vanderbilt Dr & Wiggins Pass Rd.There is noticeable evidence of large areas being cleared in this parcel. I have been in contact with Ray Bellows in the zoning division who told me they were in compliance with the current permit, but that he was going to further check into this, I have received no additional information. Please explain what they are allowed to continue doing at that property under the guidelines that were approved. Our community is very concerned with the scope of work that is being progressing.Thank you for looking into these very important issues. Regards, John Ardito President-TCCA Master Board 973-768-8359 204 GoodnerAngela Subject: Call with Brad Schiffer, Kalea Bay Location: phone call Start: Mon 4/3/2017 12:00 AM End: Tue 4/4/2017 12:00 AM Show Time As: Free Recurrence: (none) Organizer: SolisAndy Ex parte Items - Commissioner Andy Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Advertised Public Hearings 9.A. ***This item has been continued from the June 27, 2017 BCC meeting.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended, the Wolf Creek RPUD, to approve an insubstantial change to the PUD, to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only, and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 189± acres. [PDI-PL20160000404] (Mike Bosi, Director, Zoning Division) NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE I (Meetings Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls Meetings: Phone conference with Bruce Anderson, 7/7117 Emails: Steven Bracci, Bruce Anderson, Rich Yovanovich GoodnerAngela Subject: Phone call with Bruce Anderson,Wolf Creek Location: phone call Start: Fri 7/7/2017 11:00 AM End: Fri 7/7/2017 11:15 AM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndy Required Attendees: Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com) 1 GoodnerAngela From: R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 10:52 AM To: Steve Bracci Cc: SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: Re:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: image001 jpg; image002.png All, If the County had approved the prior owner's conceptual plan, I would have said "approved" and referenced an SDP#. That prior plan included the existing conceptual preserve area that would now be modified by my client's insubstantial change application. The point is that whether the conceptual Preserve is changed or not makes no difference about how many homes can fit on the land, regardless of the existing or modified preserve area. Opponents claim otherwise.They are simply wrong. I do have one correction from the project's engineer.The number of dwelling units on the prior owner's plan was 215. The 254 is the number is the number of remaining unbuilt units approved in the PUD. Thank You, R Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 Telephone: 239-659-4942 direct 239-261-9300 main Facsimile: 239-261-0884 RBAnderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:RBAnderson@napleslaw.com> www.napleslaw.corn<http://www.napleslaw.com> On Jul 7, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com»wrote: Dear Board—this is in response to Mr. Anderson's email below. I believe you should ask Mr. Anderson to clarify what he means when he states: "The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong." The impression left by Mr.Anderson is that the prior 254 site plan was approved by the county, and that the new presently pending 215 unit site plan now reduces the approved site plan. Mr.Anderson should clarify whether the county ever approved a 254 site plan, or whether he is instead just referencing a concept plan on a sheet of paper that was never approved. Sincerely, 1 Steve Bracci <image002.png> Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635<tel:%28239%29%20596-2635>; Fax: (239)431-6045<tel:%28239%29%20431-6045>; email: steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net<mailto:burtsaunders@colliergov.net>; pennytaylor@colliergov.net<mailto:pennytaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net<mailto:WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net»; andysolis@colliergov.net<mailto:andysolis@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net<mailto:DonnaFiala@colliergov.net»; KlatzkowJeff <JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net»; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net<mailto:nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net>; michaelbosi@colliergov.net<mailto:michaelbosi@colliergov.net> Cc:Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com»; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com<mailto:ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com>) <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com<mailto:ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com» Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi,This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved. The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? 2 The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director,should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong.Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law <image001.jpg> Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com> www.napleslaw.com<http://www.napleslaw.com> This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us (collect) at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination,forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From:Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net<mailto:burtsaunders@colliergov.net>; pennytaylor@colliergov.net<mailto:pennytaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net<mailto:WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net»; andysolis@colliergov.net<mailto:andysolis@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net<mailto:DonnaFiala@colliergov.net»; R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com» Subject:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change 3 Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci <image002.png> Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635<tel:%28239%29%20596-2635>; Fax: (239)431-6045<tel:%28239%29%20431-6045>; email: steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@ braccilaw.com> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 4 GoodnerAngela From: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 4:25 PM To: Richard Yovanovich; R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: CSA - Density- Runs with the Land.pdf Dear Commissioners: Black Bear Ridge concurs with Mr.Yovanovich's assertion that the presently pending 215 unit Pristine Reserve site plan exceeds the allowable 80 units density on the Mederos parcel. Black Bear Ridge also concurs with Mr.Yovanovich's concern about Mr. Anderson's representation to the board about Pristine Preserve needing a preserve reduction to accommodate larger lot sizes, when in fact the pending site plan indicates that it is really needed to accommodate a density increase. Black Bear Ridge also concurs with Mr. Yovanovich that any board approval of a reduction in preserve area should be with a stipulation that development of the Mederos parcel is limited to 80 units,since the owner elected to go the "insubstantial change" route rather than the "substantial change" route. As to who owns the remaining 103 density units per the Cost Sharing Agreement, Black Bear Ridge disagrees with Mr. Yovanovich. Notwithstanding all of the documentation that Mr. Yovanovich just provided you,the fact is that the Cost Sharing Agreement allocates density, and it is clear that the density"shall run with the Parcels." See the attached two pages from the Cost Sharing Agreement highlighting these provisions. Since all of the Black Bear Ridge lots are now privately owned, and Stock turned over control of the HOA(and thus the common area) in 2013, Black Bear Ridge residents and their HOA now own 100%of the Black Bear Ridge"Parcel" and Stock owns 0%. Since the Cost Sharing Agreement provides that the density"shall run with the Parcels," Black Bear Ridge owns the density, not Stock. While Mr. Yovanovich states that "at no time was the excess density assigned to [Black Bear Ridge],"the Cost Sharing Agreement clearly provides that the benefits run with the land and "without the necessity of a formal assignment." Black Bear Ridge appreciates that Stock is doing the right thing as the developer by re-committing to complete its already-existing obligation to pay for the off-site intersection improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Pristine Drive. This has been a documented developer obligation since as far back as 2005. Sincerely, Steve Bracci .00 ‘1, Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239)596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com 5 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: Richard Yovanovich [mailto:ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 3:48 PM To: R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com>; burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna<DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc:Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com> Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Commissioners, The petition before the BCC pertains to the modification of the preserve area.As I previously stated, it is my understanding that the Mederos parcel is limited to a density of 80 units. Mr. Bracci provided you with some of the legislative history supporting my understanding with regards to the PUD limiting density. Mr.Anderson stated to the BCC that the change in preserve area is related to increasing the lot size. However,the current plat submitted by his client clearly shows the purpose is to increase density beyond the PUD permitted density of 80 units for the Mederos parcel. Increasing density cannot occur through the Insubstantial Change process. Therefore, as long as the approval of the reduction in preserve size is conditioned upon development of the Mederos parcel being limited to 80 units, my client does not object to the petition filed by Mr.Anderson's client. I appreciate that the prior property owner had other site plans with a higher density. However,there is no evidence that the prior site plans were approved by the County. Accordingly,the prior site plans are irrelevant and not consistent with the PUD. As to the ownership of the 103 units,that is a private matter.We do not agree with Mr. Bracci's position on ownership of the units. Because Mr. Bracci spent most of his allotted time addressing ownership of the excess units,we are providing copies of some documents addressing the density rights in the PUD. The Purchase and Sale Agreement clearly identifies that Stock Development purchased the excess density. Also attached is an assignment document assigning developer rights to Black Bear Ridge Naples, LLC. Finally,the Cost Sharing Agreement addresses the excess density. At no time was the excess density assigned to Mr. Bracci's client. Mr. Bracci also spent a lot of time addressing the payment for the intersection improvements at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. My client has already agreed to pay the 30% share of Black Bear Ridge set forth in the Cost Sharing Agreement for the right and left turn lanes at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road.The 30%share was based upon an allotted density of 203 units. Only 100 units were built. Black Bear Ridge, LLC remains the owner of the unbuilt 103 units. The unbuilt units have not been assigned to the residents of Black Bear Ridge or to the Homeowner's Association. Please contact me if you have any further questions. 6 Richard D. Yovanovich Esq. COLEMAN Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 0 Y VA ;"�'`VI H 300 Naples, Florida 34103 �� ��"� (239) 435-3535 (239) 435-1218 (f) This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above email address.Thank you. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7,2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net;pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc:Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com>; Richard Yovanovich<ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else. The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client,so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong.Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build,whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. 7 Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFYPASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239)261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbandersonnapleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From:Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent:Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna<DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson<rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci ` TBir, • Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: Steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 8 GoodnerAngela From: Richard Yovanovich <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 3:48 PM To: R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Steve Bracci Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: Stock pf Buckstone Estates Purchase&Sale Agreement.pdf; Assignment of Construction Documents & Permits.pdf; Cost Sharing Agreement for the Development of Shared Access Road (OR 363....pdf Dear Commissioners, The petition before the BCC pertains to the modification of the preserve area.As I previously stated, it is my understanding that the Mederos parcel is limited to a density of 80 units. Mr. Bracci provided you with some of the legislative history supporting my understanding with regards to the PUD limiting density. Mr.Anderson stated to the BCC that the change in preserve area is related to increasing the lot size. However,the current plat submitted by his client clearly shows the purpose is to increase density beyond the PUD permitted density of 80 units for the Mederos parcel. Increasing density cannot occur through the Insubstantial Change process. Therefore, as long as the approval of the reduction in preserve size is conditioned upon development of the Mederos parcel being limited to 80 units, my client does not object to the petition filed by Mr. Anderson's client. I appreciate that the prior property owner had other site plans with a higher density. However,there is no evidence that the prior site plans were approved by the County. Accordingly,the prior site plans are irrelevant and not consistent with the PUD. As to the ownership of the 103 units,that is a private matter. We do not agree with Mr. Bracci's position on ownership of the units. Because Mr. Bracci spent most of his allotted time addressing ownership of the excess units,we are providing copies of some documents addressing the density rights in the PUD. The Purchase and Sale Agreement clearly identifies that Stock Development purchased the excess density. Also attached is an assignment document assigning developer rights to Black Bear Ridge Naples, LLC. Finally,the Cost Sharing Agreement addresses the excess density. At no time was the excess density assigned to Mr. Bracci's client. Mr. Bracci also spent a lot of time addressing the payment for the intersection improvements at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. My client has already agreed to pay the 30% share of Black Bear Ridge set forth in the Cost Sharing Agreement for the right and left turn lanes at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The 30%share was based upon an allotted density of 203 units. Only 100 units were built. Black Bear Ridge, LLC remains the owner of the unbuilt 103 units. The unbuilt units have not been assigned to the residents of Black Bear Ridge or to the Homeowner's Association. Please contact me if you have any further questions. 10 Richard D. Yovanovich Esq. Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. COLEMAN 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite Y V,,[, V I H 300 Naples, Florida 34103 KOESTER C (239) 435-3535 (239) 435-1218 (f) This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above email address.Thank you. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc: Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com>; Richard Yovanovich<ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director,should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering. The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client,so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build,whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. 11 Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFYPASSll OMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTOINCrS AT LAW 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239)659-4942 direct (239)261-9300 telephone (239)261-9782 facsimile rbandersonnapleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mai]are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From:Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent:Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna<DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci .•1' Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239)596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 12 GoodnerAngela From: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 2:38 PM To: R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Board—this is in response to Mr. Anderson's email below. I believe you should ask Mr. Anderson to clarify what he means when he states: "The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client,so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong." The impression left by Mr.Anderson is that the prior 254 site plan was approved by the county, and that the new presently pending 215 unit site plan now reduces the approved site plan. Mr.Anderson should clarify whether the county ever approved a 254 site plan, or whether he is instead just referencing a concept plan on a sheet of paper that was never approved. Sincerely, Steve Bracci \tri Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239)596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; 14 andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc:Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com>; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director,should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFY PASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. s TOP-N1is ti LAW 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbandersonanapleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 15 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From:Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent:Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andvsolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna<DonnaFiala«@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson<rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239)596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 16 GoodnerAngela From: R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Steve Bracci; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands. The County, as recommended by your Planning Director,should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build,whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFY PASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. %7T0R.Ni“ ,3 ._, 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 17 (239) 659-4942 direct (239)261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson unnapleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From:Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent:Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson<rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci "0 ,6,0 • .4< 111-- IIr Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239)596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 18 GoodnerAngela From: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 5, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff Cc: SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDaniel Bill; SolisAndy; Fiala Donna; rbanderson@napleslaw.com Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: 2017.07.05 Letter to Jeff Klatzkow (Wolf Creek PUD -Vanderbilt Reserve).pdf; Exhibit No. 2.0 Application No. 161123-9 Page 3 of 7.pdf;Vanderbilt Reserve Summary June 2017.pdf; Summary Documents July 2017 2nd.pdf Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci h Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 19 GoodnerAngela From: marc alien <mallencny@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday,June 22, 2017 8:05 AM To: SolisAndy Subject: Re: PDI - PL20160000404 Wolf Creek RPUD Preserve Reduction Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Re: PDI - PL20160000404: Wolf Creek RPUD by the developer of parcels 3b and 9 to reduce preserves Dear Commissioner Solis, First, let me be clear, I am not against development, nor against this developer's right to develop his property. The property is, however, within a residential planned urban development, Wolf Creek, and development should be in keeping with the agreements and ordinances associated with the RPUD, and should be compatible with other developments in the RPUD. There are two facets to this proposal; preserve reduction and residential density, although only one is being considered with this PDI. To be properly assessed the project should be looked at in its entirety, not piecemeal. Please consider the following: With respect to the preserves: There were no excess preserves or excess native vegetation prior to 2013 when a portion of Palermo Cove was brought into the Wolf Creek PUD. As noted in the CCPC minutes of 3/21/2013, it was intended that there be no net effect upon preserves and no increase in density in the Wolf Creek RPUD and Palermo Cove PUD, with the 2013 WCPUD and Palermo Cove amendments. Thus, the apparent "excess" should not have existed. The excess appeared when the required preserves for SFWMD, which were more than the county's native vegetation requirement, were added to the WCPUD map exhibit as preserve, but not taken into account as required native vegetation because only a portion was required. The excess was an unintended consequence and a reduction should therefore not be approved. 20 With respect to the density: While other county PUDs may have dwelling unit "pools", Wolf Creek dwelling units have been allocated to the different parcels in the PUD, initially by a Cost Sharing Agreement* and subsequently by county ordinances** as parcels were added to the PUD. This was done with intent as documented in county minutes*** CCPC minutes from 3/21/13 document specific allocation of dwelling units to prevent them from being "used" by other parcels, which would change density Parcel 9 was allocated 80 dwelling units for a density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre when it was brought into the Wolf Creek RPUD in 2007 - that was the request and that was what was approved Parcel 3b, representing N 60% of the original parcel 3, would be allocated ' 24 dwelling units based upon acreage and the original 2004 CSA post transfer of units to Falls at Portofino Thus, parcels 3b and 9 have N 104 dwelling units allocated to them under current ordinances and agreements - this yields an allocated density of N 3.3 du's/acre Comparable densities are: Black Bear Ridge - density 1.97 built out (N 4 allocated) Raffia(WCPUD portion) - N 2.3 Adjacent Island Walk - 3.04 Falls at Portofino - N 6.85 - these were initially high end town homes selling in the " $500K range - the allocation plan was for one higher density multifamily project on the periphery of WCPUD with lesser density elsewhere There is a companion application PL20160000157 which proposes a 215 dwelling unit project with N 88% of the buildings being 7-9 flex units - this is a high density row house type development of N 6.82 du's/acre - more than twice the approved/allocated density. parcels 3b and 9 do not have 215 dwelling units allocated to them and there is no request to increase the approved density the developer is claiming density he does not appear to have At every juncture, the county has historically upheld the allocation of dwelling units within the Wolf Creek PUD, documented in meeting minutes and ordinances. 21 The county should be consistent and continue to recognize the historical allocation and not allow a claim for unused but allocated dwelling units within the PUD. In conclusion please consider: The PDI for a requested reconfiguration of the preserve map and decrease in preserves should not be approved as there should be no "excess" preserves. The companion PL 20160000157 should not be approved as the requested number of dwelling units is more than twice that allocated. The high density row house type development is not compatible with the original plan and not in keeping with the majority of the adjacent developments. Note that there is no opposition to development according to parameters of the original plan; a development of —104 dwelling units, which may be multifamily, possibly with a mild or moderate increase in density, but this proposal is not that. We have met with the developer in an attempt to work out something mutually agreeable. They have been unwilling to consider any compromise in their proposed density, to which they are not entitled according to allocation. Thank you for your time, Respectfully, Marc Allen, 7347 Acorn Way, Naples FL *OR 3635 PGS 1672-1699, recognized as valid and enforceable as documented in various county meeting minutes **Ordinances 2007-46 and 2013-37 ***BCC minutes 5/22-23/2007, CCPC minutes 3/21/13 22 STEVEN J.BRACCI, PA A Professional Association Attorney at Law 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102 Naples,Florida 34109 Ph: (239)596-2635 Fax: (239)431-6045 steve@braccilaw.com www.braccilaw.com July 5,2017 VIA E-MAIL jeffklatzkow@a,colliergov.net Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Collier County Attorney's Office 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples,Florida 34112 Re: Vanderbilt Reserve—Wolf Creek PUD Insubstantial Change Request Vanderbilt Reserve—SDP Application for 215 unit subdivision per Permit Tracking#PL20160000157 Dear Jeff: On behalf of the Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members, the purpose of this letter into suggest that Vanderbilt Reserve is improperly seeking a piecemeal"insubstantial change" to the Wolf Creek PUD as part of its overall effort to obtain an SDP for a 215 unit residential subdivision. The SDP application documents are referenced at Permit Tracking #PL20160000157. In order for Vanderbilt Reserve to obtain that SDP,it requires not only a reduction of its preserve area,but also an increase in its residential density. The increase in density requires a"substantial"change to the Wolf Creek PUD pursuant to LDC Sect. 10.02.13.E.1.b,rather than the currently requested insubstantial change. For whatever reason, both staff and the owner/developer are ignoring the fact that the presently requested 215 units far exceeds the density allocated to the Vamderbilt Reserve property pursuant to the PUD. Not only do Vanderbilt Reserve's proposed 215 units exceed its overall allocated density,but the 115 dwelling units(plus 4 partial units)shown on what is known as the"Mederos"property far exceeds the 80 units that were allocated to the Mederos Parcel pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 2007-46. At last week's hearing on Vanderbilt Reserve's insubstantial change application to amend the Wolf Creek PUD to reduce the preserve area,you correctly advised the Board that the Wolf Creek PUD was "balkanized"back in 2007. In other words,rather than looking at the PUD's density as a whole,certain parcels were treated by the BCC as sub-parcels and allocated specific unit densities. This includes what is known as the"Mederos"property which, under Ordinance 2007-46, was assigned 80 development units. This same "Mederos"parcel is where the bulk of preserve is situated which the Developer/owner is seeking a reduction. 1 Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Page 2 Mr. Yovanovich spoke at the June 27 PUD amendment hearing and gave his recollection of residential density for the Mederos property given his past involvement in that matter back in 2007. Mr. Yovanovich stated: "What I do know is that right now, the way the PUD is written, there is a limitation of density on what was known as the Mederos parcel of 80 units. So as long as they don't build more than 80 units pursuant to this change in area that they're making available to themselves,we don't have a dispute. If they want to put more than 80 units on that,we do think it's inconsistent with the PUD...." The fact is, Vanderbilt Reserve does want to put more than 80 units on the Mederos property, as evidenced by its pending SDP application showing 115 units (plus 4 partial units)on that parcel. Given your statement to the Board acknowledging "balkanized" density within the Wolf Creek PUD, and Mr. Yovanovich's accurate acknowledgment that there is an 80 unit density maximum on the Mederos property, it would seem that the presently pending insubstantial change application to the Wolf Creek PUD is procedurally improper. We believe that the owner's PUD application should have been for a "substantial" change to the PUD under LDC Sect. 10.02.13.E.1.b. This would then properly allow the Board of County Commissioners to review this matter in its entirety, rather than reviewing it piecemeal and thus denying the Commissioners an opportunity to see the complete picture that the preserve is being reduced to accommodate a density increase. It is apparent that staff has not provided the Commissioners with any information regarding the pending 215-unit Vanderbilt Preserve SDP application. This approach does not best serve Collier County and its citizens. Looking beyond just the four corners of the "Mederos" property, the remainder of Vanderbilt Reserve is situated on what is known as`Parcel 3b,"which by our calculations has a maximum density of 24 dwelling units (or in any event, not more than 48 dwelling units based on 4 units per acre), capping the total allowed units within Vanderbilt Reserve at 104 units (or in any event, not more than 128 units). This is far less than the 215 units requested by Vanderbilt Reserve under its presently pending SDP application. For an understanding of the history of density on both "Parcel 3b," as well as the "Mederos" property, see the timeline and supporting documents attached hereto. We believe that the failure to properly address the need for increased density as part of the PUD amendment resulted in the concern and confusion justifiably expressed by certain board members at the June 27 meeting. This concern and confusion will likely continue until such time as the developer/owner's PUD amendment application properly addresses both the preserve reduction and the density issue. It would seem that at the July 11 meeting,the interests of the Board and the public would be best served by tabling the.PUD insubstantial change request until such time as the developer/owner follows the proper PUD substantial change amendment process. s Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney I Page 3 f Please feel free to contact me if you wish to further discuss this matter. Sincerely, 1 4 t STEVEN J. BRACCI,PA 111 t t r Steven J.Bracci, Esq. , 3 i i t t cc: Collier County Board of County Commissioners i Bruce Anderson, Esq. Client 6 , 1 } E SS ` 6 t 1 1 , , 1 t , . I y i i is. 5 i }} I , .. , 1 , , 11 :•' L4e,,,,I-Ai-1 il __ — ----1------ , r--,....,. .,,..„. ,,..,4 , ........ , _ ...... __ __ _ _ ...._ . i , 11-11-'''-'21111 II '' Vitmr:' 'g 0. 1132=LP o.,,,,, \i,gli "ir, p i . *eV IS, , 1 „ 10 ii: WI 14._ ' p vi si — In pirf 4-MI. 1 Ei ,‘5.--...:-.a -4-,--.-rl'-' ei i IT ell ta LI l I . 1...... 1 ... 1 ..7:„I V.5• 311 6 i 1.'..Zr.,11'It.+-- L,41, '11/0t | ! : 94,0 ,..„,,1 te... ;......1 PHASES 1,1 ...ill Mill.,.. �� �0 /~ ° .�o ! --..! 1411.1111.8 .. l--1 mit -tit � ^ | ' ' o�- , la mil oS i -r-- , _-,„.44. 1,..• .t.„-...-;,,t•._ --] ---=,..-7,..---- - 1 .1, rfr---,-.-linikoggirliFIRIPIR - iis t ., 0 oi, .1...i..,...1 -',Hai - ir".1___,.,1,, , '''.W. �~��~� ~-�w~ l : ~~s"� 4 1111Priiit. i 1 ..,.......,.....,.................. � --�----'-- POOP SHEET ___'__'----_'__-��_- - —' mm�m�� '`��-,r~� A ;all| ' ' .���� ---'��� ,~� o� ���� _�:_ "' -~ � / ^ . ------ -~-~ vn�_ [7.... \ X/ . � '/ --- | Mederos parcel#9 highlighted115 complete dweing units sxx/unwoco and 4 partial dwelling units Application No 161123-9 Parcel 3B located above Parcel 9 shows 96 complete dwelling units and 4 Page 3 of 7 partial units Commissioner, Pertinent pages from County records have been attached in hopes of allowing a better understanding of the Wolf Creek PUD specifically with regards to density allocation, the proposed Vanderbilt Reserve site plan and offsite improvements. A) History of density allocation in Wolf Creek RPUD: Sept 23, 2003 - Ordinance 2003-45 - Wolf Creek PUD established - 147.69 acres with 591 dwelling units approved and maximum permitted density of 4 dwelling units per acre - no allocation to any specific parcel or development but separate parcels delineated August 23, 2004 - Cost Sharing Agreement entered into OR 3635: Dwelling units assigned to parcels - note parcel numbers for CSA are different than those in County WCPUD document Upon execution of the agreement there was an immediate transfer of dwelling units from parcels 4, 5 & 6 to parcel 1 Following that transfer, the owner of parcel 1&2 had a limited time option to purchase additional density from the owner of parcels 7, 8 & 9, and this option expired in 2005 Density only transferable with written permission of owner of property losing density Runs with the land - owner is property owner May 22, 2007 - Ordinance 2007-46 - Mederos 20 acre parcel added to WCPUD BCC minutes May 22-23, 2007 pages 70-71 80 dwelling units requested for now Vanderbilt Reserve Parcel 9 no density bonuses requested, density of 3.99 80 dwelling units specifically allocated to the —20 acres which is now the Vanderbilt Reserve Parcel 9 - pg 17 Ord 2007-46 states "80 dwelling units approved in the the 20 acres being added" May 14, 2013 - Ordinance 2013-37 - Scenic Woods and a portion of Palermo Cove brought into WCPUD 83 dwelling units specifically assigned to parcels 1A-3A density was assigned, thus only usable by those parcels page 11 Ord 2013-37 Minutes from CCPC dated March 21, 2013 pigs 53-54: County and developer lawyers worked together to construct verbiage that would specifically allocate the 83 dwelling units that were being added to parcels 1 A- 3A only and limited the density in 1 A-3A such that they could not increase their density by taking dwelling units from those already present in WCPUD - thus, no pool of dwelling units in WCPUD, they were all allocated to specific parcels by the CSA and the subsequent WCPUD amendments in 2007 and 2013 - see chairman's concerns - the allocation was a purposeful intent by the county Observations: All dwelling units within WCPUD have been specifically allocated to parcels - there are no "free"dwelling units within a PUD pool For those parcels party to the CSA, the dwelling units run with the land and the owners The CSA differentiates between developer and owner A developer does not have any claim to dwelling units other than to those allocated to land that he personally owns Dwelling units governed by the CSA cannot be transferred without written permission from the owner losing density Based upon the CSA allocations, there are 103 dwelling units allocated to Black Bear Ridge parcels that have not been used and are controlled by the individual lot owners not the developer -these cannot be transferred without written authorization from the lot's owner Vanderbilt Reserve parcel 9 of WCPUD or parcel 3 of the CSA is allocated 80 dwelling units by OR 2007-46 and approved for a density of 4 Vanderbilt Reserve parcel 3B of WCPUD being — 12 acres or—60% of parcel 4 of the CSA would be allocated 24 dwelling units based upon acreage (there are 40 units total allocated to parcel 4 by the CSA, which is parcel 3A and 3B of the WCPUD) Conclusions:The county has recognized the CSA allocation of dwelling units within WCPUD and further, it has allocated additional dwelling units to the PUD according to parcel in all subsequent ordinances/PUD amendments B) The Vanderbilt Reserve Site Plan Observations: The proposed site plan for Vanderbilt Reserve shows 215 dwelling units total on the two parcels making up the development The southern parcel (#9 of WCPUD) has 115 dwelling units platted and 4 partial units The southern parcel (#9 of WCPUD) is only allocated 80 units by OR 2007-46 The northern parcel (#3B of WCPUD) has 96 dwelling units platted and 4 partial units The northern parcel is allocated 24 dwelling units by the CSA based upon acreage it consists of—12 acres, which is —60% of the total acreage of parcel #3 WCPUD (parcel #4 of CSA) - which was allocated 40 dwelling units by the CSA, therefore based upon acreage, 3B would be allocated 24 dwelling units by the CSA Conclusions:The proposed site development plan for Vanderbilt Reserve has platted density not available or approved C) Offsite Improvements for Wolf Creek PUD - PristineNanderbilt Beach intersection Observations: Ordinance 2003-45 - WCPUD Master Plan Exhibit A shows a right turn in lane from Vanderbilt onto Pristine - note also right turn in lanes at Buckstone and into Mission Hills - these have been constructed The right turn in lane from Vanderbilt onto Pristine is present on all of the Master Plan exhibit A's through OR 2013-37 2004 CSA- OR 3635 Pgs 1696-1697 Phase I Budget for Black Bear Ridge shows line items for offsite improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection with monies to be allocated for WB Rt, EB Lt turn lanes as well as signalization There is a note under assumptions: "Vanderbilt Beach Rd temporary turn lanes not required (i.e. payments to county to build improvements to support project and to built as part of 6 lane improvements)." 2005 Construction Escrow Agreement with County for Subdivision Improvements Improvements set forth in the "Estimate" by Grady Minor are required improvements by Collier County ordinances Offsite improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection included WB Rt and EB Lt turn lanes as well as signalization - these were "required" The cost of these improvements were funded by the construction loan agreement - with a $3,057,906.50 construction loan held in a specific account The county had the right to utilize the funds for construction of the required improvements if the developer failed to complete them The requirements were binding upon the Developer's successors Google Maps - if you use google maps to look at Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd through Rt 41, the Pristine Drive/Vanderbilt Beach Rd intersection appears to be the only intersection that does not have a right turn in lane Conclusions: At the Vanderbilt/Pristine intersection a west bound right turn in lane and east bound left turn lane as well as signalization of the intersection was required from the beginning The County required the Developer of BBR to construct these offsite improvements - the most recent developer There was an Escrow agreement funded with > $3 million dollars to fund infrastructure which included the offsite improvements The improvements were not made The county was responsible for supervising the completion of the infrastructure improvements required of the developer The county did not exercise it's option to utilize the escrow funds to complete the required improvements The bond is still available (communication from county) The required improvements are the responsibility of the developer not the current homeowners of BBR and if the developer did not complete them, then the county had the means and funds available Thank you, OR: 3635 PG: 1677 construction of Segment 2 shall be deemed to be the payment of said owner(s)fair share of the cost of the North-South Road with respect to Parcel 3. 7. Wolf Creek PUD. (a) Allocation. The Wolf Creek PUD encompasses Parcel 1,Parcel 2,Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive, and Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. The Wolf Creek PUD permits 591 residential dwelling units. Unless otherwise provided herein, density shall not be transferred from one parcel to another within the Wolf Creek PUD without prior written permission of the owner of the property losing density. The Wolf Creek PUD allocated the 591 residential units as follows and as shown on Exhibit"F"attached hereto and made a part hereof: Parcel 1-64 units;Parcel 7-41 units; and all other parcels in the PUD-81 units each. Upon the execution of this Agreement, 41 dwelling units each shall be automatically transferred from each of Parcels 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6, at no cost, to Parcel 1, with a total resulting transfer of 123 units to Parcel 1. Accordingly,the number of residential units allocated to Parcel 1 under the Wolf Creek PUD shall be 187. (b) Option to Purchase Additional Density. The owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ("Purchaser")shall have the option to purchase(in addition to the density allocated to Parcel 1 and Parcel pursuant to subsection (a)hereof) from the owner of Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive, ("Seller")up to 92 dwelling units which have been alloca -: •.. .f .: tion (a) hereof to Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. Said option may be exer ` i'••. r • •.re than two transactions on or before December 31, 2005 ("Expiration P.. ' e purchase pn h individual dwelling unit shall be $500.00. In the event Purchaser ec o exercise this option, ' .cha shall,on or before the Expiration Date, notify Seller of the num,er •. .._o . • ••: Clo • g f any such purchase of dwelling units shall occur within 20 da of•eller's re • notic-from ' ch ser. The purchase price shall be paid in cash,wired funds,or�'cos,: c - or fTr an ffice in Collier County,Florida or such other method as may be a . t - = •. ``', :'s .•le iscretion. Seller shall have the sole discretion to determine t •••- ' ling - • E signed. Purchaser shall pay all costs associated with the • • er of dwelling units. `.if s o,*do I terminate on midnight of the Expiration Date and be of no 1. orce and effect. o (c) Contingency. In i • t any statute, law •t• ce,resolution,rule,or regulation is adopted and enforced by the state, , .'' : •. 1: .11741 • entity (or any agency or department thereof) that would have the effect of •ir• I;1121 I 'ie number of dwelling units that can be constructed within the Wolf Creek PUD(in its en ,the parties agree that Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be collectively allocated 33%of any such temporary allocation and Parcels 4 through 9 shall be allocated 67%of any such temporary allocation;provided,however,that such temporary allocation shall not have the effect of reallocating density among the parcels. For the purposes of this paragraph only, the term "temporary"shall mean for a period of no more than twelve(12)months. 8. Native Vegetation. Unless otherwise agreed by the owners of the various Parcels, all Parcels within the Wolf Creek PUD shall be designed to stand alone. All Parcels with indigenous native vegetation, as determined by Collier County, will be required to preserve or replant 25% of such native vegetation,as described in Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, or in the event of a repeal of said section, such other section of the Collier County Land Development Code controlling the same subject matter. Each of the Parcels shall provide for its own native vegetation requirements as shown within the Collier County approved environmental impact study that was submitted in conjunction with the Wolf Creek PUD rezoning petition,unless otherwise agreed to by any one or more Parcels owners. Parcels providing in excess of 25% native vegetation can transfer such credit to another Parcel under different ownership only upon written agreement of the property owner transferring the excess credit. 6 OR: 3635 PG: 1685 provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make it or its application valid and enforceable, and the validity and enforceability of all other provisions of this Agreement and all other applications of any such term or provision shall not be affected thereby,and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 17. Modifications. Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement may not be modified in any respect whatsoever or rescinded, in whole or in part, except by the consent of the owner(s) of the Parcels, and then only by written instrument duly executed, acknowledged by all of said owners,and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. No modification or termination of this Agreement shall affect the rights of any lienholder of any portion of any of the Parcels unless the lienholder consents in writing to the modification or termination. Immilmill0.- 18. Covenants Running with Land. All of the provisions of this Agreement,including all of the benefits and burdens described herein,shall run with the Parcels and shall be binding upon the Parcels and the successors in title to each of the Parcels. The rights and obligations in and to this Agreement are and shall be assignable to any and all successors in title to each of the Parcels,without the necessity of a formal assignment. However, should any party acquiring title to any of the Parcels request a formal assignment,the parties hereto agree to cooperate in the approval and execution of any such assignment. 19."."4100- Interpretation of I •• Iva -; a essly provided, the term"owner"when used in this Agreement shall be de- i • •• s.e and in,,, i - • 'er and the owner's successors,assigns, or successor in title. "' 20. Integration. •s •gre • em•••'es i e entire i,d • ding of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein,an. the . ../ - •. _y- . :•s•, + • all prior understandings. 1 21. Counte i ,, •gr, ;,• execs -• m1iny'number of counterparts,each of which shall be deemed to be : _.-• as " •• "` `o ture appears thereon and all of which shall together constitute , d the same ins. • - �o 22. Recording. This ',i - ent shall be recor• • Public Records of Collier County, Florida. t17),4,&-, A� IIT E C1 C • (SIGNATURES BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE) 14 *** OR: 3635 PG: 1699 *** INITIAL DENSITY ALLOCATION-WOLF CREEK PUD Wolf Creek PUD's Initial Residential Unit Allocation #S #5 CO(�TT 61 81 I U 704 #11 #7 \Cadnfwers Lend 61 ' ' 41 r-v Nage*Lend v Tan Ceat7YLend ldWolk We ° ., -- -- j PUD Ftssidonrid 8E C Shopping Center1 Mimic»Hes #1 W 64 A-2 Wended*Beech Road A-1 Total of 14769 acres and 591 Un/ls EXHIBIT"F" 28 May 22-23, 2007 Will Dempsey and Rick Mercer. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Pritt? MR. PRITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Robert Pritt. I'm here on behalf of Prime Homes, LLC -- Prime Homes at Portofino Falls. It's owner of parcel number five, which we would like to add to the existing Wolf Creek PUD. I have with me -- I think you've named all the names, but Dave Underhill is also with us in case you need to have anybody testify as to planning, zoning, engineering matters, and we also have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Abbo, who's the founder of the company here today, as well as Larry Abbo, Linda Socolow and also Steve Greenfield? As has been said, Rich Yovanovich is also here. I believe that Mr. Hoover is here also on behalf of the Catalina Land Group, owner of the balance of the Wolf Creek PUD. The background here is that we're requesting a rezone from rural agricultural and planned development, planned unit development, to residential planned unit development zoning district. And as was said, we're just going to add 20.26 acres and are requesting 80 dwelling units to be added to the existing Wolf Creek PUD. This would make for a total of 167.96 acres and a total of 671 dwelling units, which may be single or multifamily dwellings, and we also are going to amend the PUD document and the associated master plan. As also has been said in the introduction, the proposal is to reduce the maximum height of multifamily structures from 42 feet and three stories to 38 feet and two stories and to eliminate some uses. The location of the property is on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road approximately one half mile west of Collier Boulevard, and we can show you that on the map. This map here, it's kind of hard Page 70 May 22-23, 2007 to read, but what I wanted to point out here is that the -- let's see. We've got Vanderbilt road -- Beach Road here and 951 there. Thank you. And I heavily marked -- right there in the middle is parcel number five marked in red so that you can see what the situation is. The heavy black line that goes all the way around the existing PUD goes clear around -- clear around to the other side and back, carved out this -- either carved out or left out this parcel which is right smack dab in the middle. And to everybody's credit, they are trying to put this together with the existing PUD rather than create some other type of PUD or new PUD and -- so that we can have a real unified project and project area. A couple things to keep in mind. And this is all in the staff report. I know that you all have read the staff report and all the documents, but the -- in this subdistrict there's a base density of four dwelling units per acre. There's a limit of a maximum of 16 units per acre under the density rating system. And we're not asking for any density bonuses and there are no density reductions that are applicable. So the site would be eligible for four dwelling units per acre, and the requested density is actually 3.99. I'm not sure how it worked out that way. But we're asking for the four units per acre essentially. The transportation element. It's been found consistent with the transportation element. There are contingencies concerning concurrency and -- that are in the PUD document that has -- that was discussed and handled at the Planning Commission hearing and -- so that is in the PUD document that you have in front of you. One thing that is a little bit different, and that's the affordable housing impacts. The request had contained no provisions to address affordable or workforce housing demands that may be created. We went through the Planning Commission hearing process. It was Page 71 H. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the RPUD Master Plan shall be considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long- Range Transportation Plan. I. When ingress and egress improvements are determined, as necessary, right-of-way and compensating right-of-way shall be provided for and in conjunction with said improvements. J. All work within the Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a right-of-way permit. K. All internal access ways, drive aisles and roadways, not located within County right-of-way shall be privately maintained by an entity created by the developer, its successor in title, or assigns. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. L. The proposed loop road located around the Mission Hills development, that would provide access for the project onto Collier Boulevard, is conceptually shown on the RPUD Master Plan and shall be a public roadway. It shall be designed and constructed to a minimum 30 mile per hour design speed. The construction costs of the loop road shall not be eligible for impact fee credits, but the developer of the roadway may be able to privately negotiate "fair share" payments or reimbursements from neighboring property owners. M. No building permits shall be issued for any of the additional 80 units approved in the 20 acres that is being added to this PUD until such time as Vanderbilt Beach Boulevard between Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and Livingston Road, and CR 951 between Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road are substantially complete. N. Within 30 days of the adoption date of this RPUD rezone, the developers owning the property fronting Pristine Drive shall convey in fee simple to Collier County the right-of-way necessary for the two-lane construction of Pristine Drive. Each developer shall convey 30 feet for the Pristine Drive right-of-way. The anticipated width of the right-of-way is 60 feet. The turn lanes required for each individual project shall be accommodated within the project's boundary. Revised 5/31/07 to reflect BCC changes 17 general configuration of which is also illustrated by Exhibit"A" and Exhibit "A- 1". B. Areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1" shall be constructed as lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof may be constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be in the same general configuration and contain the same general acreage as shown by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1". Minor modification to all tracts, lakes or other boundaries may be permitted at the time of subdivision plat or SDP approval, subject to the provisions of the LDC. C. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1", such easements as necessary (utility, private, semi-public) shall be established within or along the various Tracts as may be necessary. 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USES A maximum of 6.74754 residential dwelling units shall be constructed in the residential areas of the project. The gross project area is 46744188.78± acres. The gross project density shall be a maximum of 3.99 units per acre if all 67-4-754 dwelling units are approved and constructed-. A minimum of 83 dwelling units will be assigned to parcels 1 A - 3A due to the additional acreage being added to the PUD by the owner of those parcels. In addition, parcels 1A - 3A shall be entitled to incorporate any other density owned by the developer of these parcels. There shall be a maximum density of 163 dwelling units on parcels 1A- 3A. 2.5 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a record plat, and/or condominium plat for all or part of the RPUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the RPUD Master Plan, Collier County subdivision rules, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan and Exhibit "A-1" RPUD Master Plan Amended, constitutes the required RPUD development plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with RPUD approval, a subdivision plat or SDP, as applicable, may be submitted for areas covered by the RPUD Master Plan. Any division of the property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the RPUD Master Plan Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1" -and LDC. C. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications to Collier County and the methodology for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. Words struek-t reugh are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 11 of 26 March 21,2013 Page 6. That's just a change to add a Parcel 2B.Page 7? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There are so many different owners,and I don't know if they're all represented here. I just want to make sure that all the owners know,and you're not trying to do something over them on this. I see Prime Homes—or Premier. I see Buckstone. I know Stock is in there. 3B--okay. I found out. That's Prime Homes.I just want to know— COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What page are you on,Diane? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,she's on Page 7. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was on Page 7 of 25 when they're trying to break down all the parcels. So I was going back and forth trying to find out who owned what. MR.ARNOLD: Well,what we were trying to do there is,in the addition language,was really to reflect the parcels under the joint ownership for the property we're talking about today and not changing the other. I know the ownership has changed for the others,but we didn't update the other ownership within the PUD. We just updated what's under the unified control of the application today that we're in for the changes on,which would be the Parcels 1A, 1B,2A,2B,and 3A. And those were previously the Hoover and Catalina Land Holdings,et cetera,and--so now we're reflecting that currently the ownership is Raffia Holdings of Naples,LLC,and the Wolf Creek Naples Holdings,LLC. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: It was really a clarification to reflect the part we're controlling and update that ownership. We didn't feel like we needed to update parcels that weren't subject to our control,which was kind of the theme for the changes we made,which is,let's not monkey with the rest of the PUD that we're not impacting,so— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to Page 8. Anybody have any questions on Page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9? Anything on 9?Wayne,can you explain why on the top of the page you added that verbiage? MR.ARNOLD: Yeah. At the top of the page,Mr.Strain,you asked me why we added the phrase "along portions of the property boundary." And that's with respect to the water management system.And it says that—it,in essence,it says there will be a permitted berm constructed along--it basically assumes it's along the entire perimeter,and that's not in--that's not exactly true,especially now that we're combining portions of this PUD with the development of Palermo Cove. So there won't be a continuous perimeter berm,and I don't believe there was ever intended to be one. It really--it's probably a misstatement of the time. I mean,there is a perimeter berm in place,but it's not a continuous perimeter berm through,because we take inflows or water through other projects,or from other projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: So it's a clarification,really. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on Page 9? If not,Page 10? Anybody have issues on Page 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 11? MR.ARNOLD: Page 11,I don't know what other changes you may have,but we've been talking to the County Attorney's Office in reference to Section 2.4. We had made reference to 163 units for this portion of the PUD that was described in parcels—the Parcels IA through 3A as we've referred to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. There was some new language I saw circulated,but I don't have it in this package. MR.ARNOLD: We did. We sent some language—I think if you'll flip it. Yeah. The other way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That must be a part of legal training,because there's some other attorney that does that all the time,too,Heidi. MR.ARNOLD: So this is language that Rich and Heidi worked on,and ifs trying to capture that Page 53 of 85 March 21,2013 we're modifying and bringing in properties to our PUD. We think we control those units that we're bringing in. And then,of course,you've heard reference to another allocation agreement that was in place before this PUD amendment was revised. So the language here,in essence,says that we've got 83 units associated with what we're bringing in, and then there's,you know--I can't read it from here. I'll have to come over and read it if we want to read it into the record. But,in essence,the language is going to say,a minimum of 83 dwelling units will be assigned to the Parcels IA through 3A due to the additional acreage being added to the PUD by the owner of those parcels. And,in addition,Parcels lA through 3A shall be entitled to incorporate any other density owned by the developer of these parcels. There shall be a maximum density of 163 units on Parcels IA through 3A. And that's really for,I guess,protection of the other owners as well to make sure that we're not making a grab for more units than we think we're entitled to,nor are we going to put a bunch of density that was unanticipated on the parcels that were originally part of the agreement. So hopefully that works for everybody. I know that—I mean,obviously everything's subject to further wordsmithing,but I think that captures what we were trying to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was concerned earlier today that—I wanted to make sure that the additional density was captured by those parcels so that it wasn't spread to others who may not have expected it so—because that would be a change in intensity. And I think you've kept it that way,so that's good. Anybody else have any comments,questions? If not,let's go to Page 12. Now,this is an amendment to an existing PUD,so some of the language that we tried to correct in the Palermo can't necessarily apply to this because of the way—this product's already started.You've already got plats done and SDPs done and quite a bit. MR.ARNOLD: But I do think under Section 3.4(aX4),which is,again,the reference to the gatehouse,guardhouse,architectural features,et cetera— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all new. MR.ARNOLD: --that's new language that we added for Parcels lA through 3A,and I think it's probably wise that we put in the same development standards that we talked about in Palermo Cove just for consistency purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's new language;I would agree. MR.ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? That's on Page 13. On Page 3--I mean,on Item 3 of that,you have carports shall be permitted within parking areas,and garages shall be permitted at the edge of vehicular pavements. With the setbacks and all the other standards for those carports and garages,I would assume,then, that the accessory-structure language on the tables that follow apply to those carports or garages;is that a correct assumption? MR.ARNOLD: I think so. That was language that currently exists,Mr.Strain. It wasn't new language we added if—it's A3 that you're reading? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I was just curious,because we—that's the same kind of question that started our discussion on 4. But I think staff on that one—because carports would have to be accessory to units,that would be more or less your accessory standards that you would be looking at I guess it could have been written better to begin with. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Didn't those come from the multifamily units? That's where you'd normally have a carport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's not restricted to them,but I mean,I would— COMMISSIONER VONIER But this is a single-family dwelling project now,so it probably doesn't make any difference. Carports aren't germane,I wouldn't think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this applies to the entire Wolf Creek PUD. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Oh,yeah;that's right.Okay,yeah. Everybody else,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page 14,anybody have any issues? That's the existing language. And on Page 15 is the new language. And we have some corrections from the other document that need to be Page 54 of 85 }!^.aA }} i r M , .3 'srisAAst''scp- } iI'19'1p a 14: 1; AI I'IIiI}g}A hid MN Aft 4 IIN M 7II.,, IIB1gi titY l i. :1q' limb I i Y/1 l i"P�i i}9F�ip}i A t!milli!;PPF l��'� FNY ��IiP€i�����Et�Wl�3��1 ��REEdmo k El€Ii �� t I�� mor: poilliquill o i e i r 1� 3i Bf€; a A pp )) I: r, © S I - , . , . EV II A,. Ir --, -'-'-:"7-04§11110' 7I "tl' �� le i` 9eel eiele 'e® } _ E . p- g, 8 , .+ I_ 11.2_, atm,—a I arr A: �3�sha ,j1�s3a mmlmim{m a — ,}Z�= ' »r'*--„ —•ter E1` :rr i:i-oi, i �'$#i iiata ala} ,,---4' ;w Ike .' i ft ' Ilk (t 61 I', I e1 � 'Ab�' Its- 3 e s t a:_iq!"'--"—"' QRS r5. +' 3 ��I�elltl aYOA. • 4 r�u; ;�. i,'i+II iir 111 P 1 ® e �� S L)" i._g i;" • un _ mjR it {xgit i }p;� .— il= it k' 1i4: i 14 t • �. AI_ I� I e ' 4 �, A;!i� vi s ,, a (IN ��� "� �� �n_��tewn��s a �II1.� -:a € I�II1L iel'' lalej® elei ►iielele - 6pr . 3, l I� a aii .i_: is'1,4,1111:177111°177171:1111,, € mlmt�' tN.-- ltatmt �l�i. $' �i:: i- € ; ®t!.Il!pmt tati� _ aS--- .— _ t ip pp .'ems . - r— Pa C} �� as € { ern ' a+ast ',4 ai I ill o !1.01 , 1y elelel t lelel,l• elllel: ', _ ,,,"•� 's'u '- - - - - '-- 1 A - -1. _i f gayy '�j� A._ :. E.r. I.{ r A fl -- 3 4. _ -.. q co C.�n q 1 1elolel ielelele } _, y I :4lAI 24 rti timtm iititm+ .i A: p A�, a. i „ I' Ili i...--_-..-.........‘,.... -7.7.44,i, juma€,aFa;a pa,�=mtm i�a m:,, t.�. ' , �� M : it „I elele, ice!e`J!mit®va .60 1 ';, 6 : f WOLF CREEK PUD --�»-- =.:, r, . PUD MASTER PLAN ------------- __— + ����±�a�'u sTzd riracimmai..r.maw. ...s+ I 1 R4S MTNIta11�'II i [ 4P"ii. Irmie rP4.1 fT71r TOTK OIIBftE MRtOENOUB PAF>FAVEYAL RE- —_�� �J�•jy'�/{'i//w�/}!4+ '�}{/yyt >QSI�CRFB.MMIO)YY11Tar]Ol AWES Milt) /yfyYy�G i Mw+s �\��-_—I'�'II IS CURRENTLY tutowpaOTHE IS AGMs nu :�'L%'/�•,�•/� w� IA 1�R�7 O BE TERMO PUN.AR ES RVE]AT TNKREswt1 — N'/6C5S�Ghl4Y `% RE MOM AND PRESERVE]AT TE TME Of IOP {' /� /r .PLAT APPROVAL Ii w... a.ar•- ...� wr-.� — • `- „n—e. r—o.w-- 1 --,••• ---1T-= I ill II! I 1 II tr•.� %"' G �,, r 1 ,G P..1........... Mar rAmc.w.a.aR.--- re II a II ...,:. , , ...................................... I I I V OMR n MRM RRRAI --' OMIERIDEVELOPER ,■ I IORRLR£egWlt inY w +S .R v n.l.r.tr/...r7.....it l.r.,,..1.. PUD MASTER PLAN ®.nw,EIiRtwoMY=RAM .e......... �� L . ..i 1._ _ =■ —�w-- P.�7 r-.i Standards, current edition, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the LDC. B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all development points of ingress and egress from any County collector or arterial roadway. Said lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first permanent certificate of occupancy (CO). C. Site-related improvements (as opposed to system-related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. D. Road Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with applicable County ordinances and the LDC. E. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to: safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. F. Interconnections shall be required by Collier County staff as a condition of SDP approval. G. The developer shall be responsible for its proportional share of the cost of a traffic signal system, or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement marking at any development entrance onto the County's collector/arterial roadway network, including both ends of the loop road, should a traffic signal be warranted. If warranted, upon the completion of the installation, inspection, burn-in period, and final approvaUacceptance of said traffic signal it shall be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County, and will then be operated and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Department. H. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the RPUD Master Plan Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1, shall be considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), Words struek- rough are deleted;words underlined are added. Woff Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 23 of 26 OR: 3635 PG: 1696 Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Off-slte Improvements Item-North-South Outer Loop Road Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Cleating and Grubbing 2 AC $3,500.00 57,000.00 2 Sib Fence 2,800 LF 51.50 54,200.00 • 3 Fill 8,500 CY S9.00 $76,500.00 4 Final Grade 1 LS 56,500.00 $6,500.00 5 Valley Gutter 2.700 LF 55.50 514,150.00 6 r Limerock Base(compacted and primed) 4,800 SY S7.50 536,000.00 7 12'Stabilized Subgrade 5,750 SY S2.25 812,937.50 8 3'Asphalt 4,100 SY U.50 540,800.00 9 Signing R pavement markings I LS 56,500.00 $6,500.00 • 10 Sodding 5,600 SY S1.50 38,700.00 I I 5'Wide Concrete Sidewalk 1,500 SY $16.50 $24,750.00 12 4'L rnerock(under sidewalk) 1,500 SY S4.50 S6,750.00 13 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS 52,500.00 52,500.00 Sub-total ,. ,,ea.,�.,r 5=47987.50 Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements I aat5ty Unit Price Total I Tum Lanes Complete(WB Rt,EB Lt) 540,000.00 880,000.00 2 SignalIation 000.00 5130,000.00 3 Side Drain Drainage(4 D131,DBL run 36") ��� � r_,/, 35,00(1.00 535,000.00 4 Lighting L LS`- 525,000. 525,000.00 cQ Sabah', .:^ *. 5270,000.00 N Item-North-South Outer I�p d \ , Sanitary Seweri — Qua.N --.ti's t Unit Price, Tatel 1 8"PVC Force Main(C-900 s t 4-OQ \528.000.00 2 I'Plug Valve w/Box f oj1'b�X 52,7 00 3 Hot Tap Future 16'Force on 00 i Item-North-South Onte IF, c... .1.71 : ' + .,j( .! Water Maio }, Quaatity ' Uufti rke�i t i /; Hot Tap Existing 30"Bela Con`11tt.„ k 3, I (or at-j/b and tap new prop 24't9 .l 1 LS`r c 5351,.... ,les;000.00 2 12'PVC Water Main(CL 200) "' 1,400 LF :,700.00 3 12"Gate Valve w/Box ` 2 EA .. S3,000.00 4 Fire Hydrant(Complete Assembly) O� 2 EA - $4,800.00 5 Permanent Bacterial Sample Point ('' v,r,,,.00 $1,000.00 6 Temporary Bacterial Sample Point x.00 5900.00 7 Air Release Valve Cl'"�..-RA-- 51,550,00 53,100.00 Sob-Total 2:$.,,'.4::'F:si.:f',1^;:?x $83,500.00 Item-North-South Outer Loop Road- Draiaage Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Control Structure 1 EA $4,000.00 54,000.00 2 15"RCP 100 LF 523.00 52,300.00 3 18'RCP 350 LF 525.00 58,750.00 4 24'RCP 1,200 LF $34.00 $40,800.00 5 Valley Goner Throat Inlet 6 EA 52,000.00 312,000.00 6 Grate Inlet 4 FA $1,700.00 56,800.00 7 Junction Box 8 PA $1,850.00 514,100.00 8 15'Flared End Section 1 EA $900.00 5900.00 Sub-Total s ��4!: 390,350.00 OIFSiteTotala =').",,,,".'..,,,:.",-...Z'',•.1•.v;:. $728,097.50 5/14/2004 EXHIBIT"D"-Page 2 of 3 25 OR: 3635 PG: 1697 Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Assumptions Construction stake out excluded. Permit fees excluded. Impact fees excluded. Engineering fees excluded. Testing services excluded. Street lighting excluded(except VBR intersection). Conservation Area No mitigation,or replanting costs included(clearing only). • Sewer Sewer profile has been adjusted to include ,,.. '4 .V C O j'i service for the potential lots on the Comcast`pa S-'' `-'"^>°•-/1j1g,7/c),...3 , Drainage Water \ '' L Will provide water service stubs or 2 " - 44 ' Earthwork and Clearing f� Fill from lakes is limited to only 1' ! nation depth below existing 14,` .d,p�r D' .+-., commendation. An average of 1.6 ft of fill over the at eveloped site. . (J Rock excavation,rock crushing and• incidental to the lake exea ..- , (I PavingILE �"".\ Sidewalk cost included in initial infrastructure. Offsite Inner loop road to be built by others,including turn lanes to serve site(no costs assumed). Vanderbilt Beach Rd 6 lane improvements in place(I.e.force main). Vanderbilt Beach Rd temporary turn lanes not required(Le.payment to county to build improvements to support project and to built as part of 6 lane improvements). %7y� .5,� ; QRZ y ..4- �72t /6% .....0.../1.4,_e_„:. K LdZZ �, 7 EXHIBIT"D"-Page 3 of 3 26 CONSTRUCTION,MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS-(INFRASTRUCTURE) • THIS AGREEMENT entered into this 301' day of August, 2005 by Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (hereinafter "Developer"), THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (hereinafter the `Board"), and Orion Bank, a Florida banking corporation(hereinafter"Lender"). RECITALS ORIGINAL A. Developer has, simultaneously with the delivery of this Agreement, applied for the approval by the Board of a certain plat of a subdivision to be known as: Black Bear Ridge. B. The subdivision will include certain improvements which are required by Collier County ordinances, as set forth in a site construction cost estimate ("Estimate") prepared by Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1. For purposes of this Agreement, the "Required Improvements" are limited to those described in the Estimate. C. Sections 10.02.05 and 10.02.04 of the Collier County Subdivision Code Division of the Unified Land Development Code require the Developer to provide appropriate guarantees for the construction and maintenance of the Required Improvements. D. Lender has entered into a construction loan agreement with Developer dated June 2, 2005 (the"Construction Loan")to fund the cost of the Required Improvements. E. Developer and the Board have acknowledged that the amount Developer is required to guarantee pursuant to this Agreement is THREE MILLION FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50), and this amount represents 110% of the Developer's engineer's estimate of the construction costs for the Required Improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Developer, the Board and the Lender do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Developer will cause the water, sewer, roads, drainage, and like facilities, the Required Improvements, to be constructed pursuant to specifications that have been approved by the Development Services Director within 12 months from the date of approval of said subdivision plat. 2. Developer hereby authorizes Lender to hold THREE MILLION FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50) from the Construction Loan, in escrow, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The suxent Orion Bank account number for this account is 8500006690. 3. Lender agrees to hold in escrow THREE MILLION FIFTY-SEVEN n�� SUP I— 'r THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50) from the Construction Loan, to be disbursed only pursuant to this Agreement. Lender acknowledges that this Agreement shall not constitute a draw against the Construction Loan fund,but that only such funds as are actually disbursed, whether pursuant to this Agreement or a provision of the Construction Loan, shall accrue interest. 4. The escrowed funds shall be released to the Developer only upon written approval of the Development Services Director who shall approve the release of the funds on deposit not more than once a month to the Developer, in amounts due for work done to date based on the percentage completion of the work multiplied by the respective work costs less ten percent (10%); and further, that upon completion of the work, the Development Services Director shall approve the release of any remainder of escrowed funds except to the extent of$305,790.65 which shall remain in escrow as a Developer guaranty of maintenance of the Required Improvements for a minimum period of one (1) year pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the Agreement. However, in the event that Developer shall fail to comply with the requirements of this Agreement, then the Lender agrees to pay to the County immediately upon demand the balance of the funds held in escrow by the Lender, as of the date of the demand, provided that upon payment of such balance to the County, the County will have executed and delivered to the Lender in exchange for such funds a statement to be signed by the Development Services Director to the effect that: (a) Developer for more than sixty (60) days after written notification of such failure has failed to comply with the requirements of this agreement; (b) The County, or its authorized agent, will complete the work called for under the terms of the above-mentioned contract or will complete such portion of such work as the County, in its sole discretion shall deem necessary in the public interest to the extent of the funds then held in escrow; (c) The escrow funds drawn down by the County shall be used for construction of the Required Improvements engineering, legal and contingent costs and expenses, and to offset any damages, either direct or consequential, which the County may sustain on account of the failure of the Developer to carry out and execute the above-mentioned development work; and, (d) The County will promptly repay to the Lender any portion of the funds drawn down and not expended in completion of the said development work. 5. Written notice to the Lender by the County specifying what amounts are to be paid to the Developer shall constitute authorization by the County to the Lender for release of the specified funds to the Developer. Payment by the Lender to the Developer of the amounts specified in a letter of authorization by the County to the Lender shall constitute a release by the County and Developer of the Lender for the funds disbursed in accordance with the letter of authorization from the County. 6. The Required Improvements shall not be considered complete until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been furnished to be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director for compliance with the Collier County Subdivision Regulations. 7. The County Manager or his designee shall, within sixty(60) days of receipt of the statement of substantial completion, either: a) notify the Developer in writing of his preliminary approval of the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of his refusal to approve the improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the Developer must fulfill in order to obtain the Director of the Required Improvements. However, in no event shall the Development Services Director refuse preliminary approval of the improvements if they are in fact constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. 8. Should the funds held in escrow be insufficient to complete the Required Improvements, the Board, after duly considering the public interest, may at its option complete the Required Improvements and resort to any and all legal remedies against the Developer. 9. Nothing in this Agreement shall make the Lender liable for any funds other than those placed in deposit by the Developer in accordance with the foregoing provision; provided, that the Lender does not release any monies to the Developer or to any other person except as stated in this Escrow Agreement to include closing the account or disbursing any funds from the account without first requesting and received written approval from the County. 10. The Developer shall maintain all Required Improvement for one year after preliminary approval by the County Manager or his designee. After the one year maintenance period by the Developer and upon submission of a written request for inspection, the Development Services Director shall inspect the Required Improvements and, if found to be still in compliance with the Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Lender's responsibility to the Board under this Agreement is terminated. The Developer's responsibility for maintenance of the Required Improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for and by the County. 11. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the Developer and the Lender. (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank-Signatures Begin on Next Page) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and the•Develoer have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized-representatives this sol- day of3 4',2005. DEVELOPER: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC, i a Florida limited liability company lP .�.r�O By: Catalina Land Group, (PralEar TE.?. Y $iii ' a Florida corporation, its Manager (Print Name: f 0-� el t ) By: 21/4 ci.V., )4,--e•—•-.....,,, Wi ham L. Hoover, President LENDER: Orion Bank, ,,,� a Florida banking corporation Li .... ►A' t:ri 6-‘----iiiBy:Q y,� n ,,711.1. "T, .,,, :mac••,--) Mil 211021'� Name:___ r t X. K Phi-L U (Print Name:' Br ndy A. Rosch 1 e Title: S 4ri'iO,C Ps•C PQi $t•bevr- ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA L2 r. .9: 1 . .e O?CK,Clerk T \` yu. �.� . ` W. -Ltk 'Cler'l • ``` 1, Chairman 6.-.8,0,k, ;A to is ,fits r i •i -.-signator ,ilnl ja : Feu L) • cry l —Approvedd 4s•to,66-ni and legal sufficiency: '1 ; VA Assistant County At ey J MVrU i Ft 1 A. t�,)e D ^GgY1 SwI.a dn,Y baof &bd.own• V'INN:Con...,Munscnke and[s.nr.Agreime t tor Sol4o soon IO 0000oents.Ax Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Off-site Improvements (PRISTINE DRIVE) %PROGRESS BUDGET Site Work Quantity Unit Price Total AS OF 9-15-06 CONSUMED 1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 AC $3,500.00 $7,000.00 100% $7,000.00 2 Silt Fence 2,800 LF $1.50 $4,200.00 100% $4,200.00 3 Fill 8,500 CY $9.00 $76,500.00 100% $76,500.00 4 Final Grade 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00 100% $6,500.00 5 Valley Gutter 2,700 I.F $5.50 $14,850.00 100% $14,850.00 6 8"Limerock Base(compacted and primed) 4,800 SY $7.50 $36,000.00 100% $36,000.00 7 12"Stabilized Subgrade 5,750 SY $2.25 $12,937.50 100% $12,937.50 8 3"Asphalt 4,800 SY $8.50 $40,800.00 60% $24,480.00 9 Signing&pavement markings 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00 0% $0.00 10 Sodding 5,800 SY $1.50 $8,700.00 0% $0.00 11 5'Wide Concrete Sidewalk 1,500 SY $16.50 524,750.00 0% $0.00 12 4"Limerock(under sidewalk) 1,500 SY $4.50 $6,750.00 0% $0.00 13 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 100% $2,500.00 Sub-total $247,987.50 Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Turn Lanes Complete(WB Rt,EB U) 2 LS $40,000.00 $80,000.00 0% $0.00 2 Signalization I LS $130,000.00 $130,000.00 0% $0.00 3 Side Drain Drainage(4 DBI,DBL run 36") 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 100% $35,000.00 4 Lighting 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 0% $0.00 Sub-total $270,000.00 Sanitary Sewer Quantity Unit Price Total 1 8"PVC Force Main(C-900 Class 200) 1,400 LF $20.00 $28,000.00 100% $28,000.00 2 8"Plug Valve w/Box 2 EA $1,380.00 $2,760.00 100% $2,760.00 3 Hot Tap Future 16"Force Main on VBR l LS $5,500.00 $5,500.00 100% $5,500.00 Sub-total $36,260.00 Water Main Quantity Unit Price Total Hot Tap Existing 30"Reinf Cone Water Main 1 . (or alt-'j/b and tap new prop 24"wm) 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 100% $35,000.00 2 12"PVC Water Main(CL 200) 1,400 LF $25.50 $35,700.00 100% $35,700.00 3 12"Gate Valve wBox 2 EA $1,500.00 53,000.00 100% $3,000.00 4 Fire Hydrant(Complete Assembly) 2 EA $2,400.00 $4,800.00 100% $4,800.00 5 Permanent Bacterial Sample Point 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 100% $1,000.00 6 Temporary Bacterial Sample Point 1 EA $900.00 5900.00 100% $900.00 7 Air Release Valve 2 EA $1,550.00 $3,100.00 100% $3,100.00 Sub-Total $83,500.00 Drainage Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Control Structure I EA $4,000.00 54,000.00 100% $4,000.00 2 15"RCP 100 LF $23.00 $2,300.00 100% $2,300.00 3 18"RCP 350 LF $25.00 58,750.00 100% $8,750.00 4 24"RCP 1,200 LF $34.00 $40,800.00 100% $40,800.00 5 Valley Gutter Throat Inlet 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000.00 100% $12,000.00 6 Grate Inlet 4 EA $1,700.00 $6,800.00 100% $6,800.00 7 Junction Box 8 EA $1,850.00 $14,800.00 100% $14,800.00 8 15"Flared End Section I EA $900.00 5900.00 100% $900.00 Sub-Total 590,350.00 Off-SiteTotals .. _ ._. $728,097.50 59% $430,077.50 9/15/2006 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Andy Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A.4 This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Arthrex Boulevard, Application Number PL20170001077. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE Meetings ❑Correspondence e-mails ['Calls Ex parte Items - Commissioner Andy Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A.5 This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes Phase 1A, Application Number PL20170001378. 7 NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE nMeetings ❑Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls , Ex parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Board of Zoning Appeals 18.A. (1:30 Time Certain) This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Judith S. Palay and 92 other property owners within the Cocohatchee Bay Neighborhood Communities,filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the administrative approval of building separations, building widths, building dwelling units, and building heights in the Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA-PL20160002242 for Kalea Bay aka Kinsale Condominium Phases Il-VI.The subject property is located at the northwest and northeast corners of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South and Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170002165] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM XI SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®E-mail ®Calls Meeting w/ Diane Rupnow & Judy Palay, Phone Call w/ Frank Hales, Correspondence from the Law Firms, Discussions w/ Planning Commissioners, County Attorney Memorandum Advertised Public Hearings 9. . ***This item has been continued from the June 27, 2017 BCC meeting.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended,the Wolf Creek RPUD,to approve an insubstantial change to the PUD,to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only,and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 189± acres. [PDI-PL20160000404] n NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM XI SEE FILE ❑Meetings ®Correspondence ®E-mail ®Calls Received correspondence from Attorney Steven Bracci representing the Black Bear Ridge HOA and Emails and phone call w/ Bruce Anderson. Other than that, no additional communications since Ex Parte was disclosed at the last meeting. March 24, 2015 saying -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So any -- MR. KLATZKOW: -- did not meet this criteria. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- Commissioner that votes no on this has to present the evidence on which that Commissioner is relying to turn this application down. MR. KLATZKOW: No, you need not have to state that on the record. As long as there's something in the record that would support a denial, it's sufficient. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that -- and what has to be on the record has to be sufficient competent evidence. MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not opinion. MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it can't be anything that isn't on the record. MR. KLATZKOW: Correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: As presented here today. As to turning down reopening that settlement agreement, if you use that as a basis to deny this petitioner his statutory right to be heard on this, isn't that denying him his legal right? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why is that? MR. KLATZKOW: Because we have an agreement, all right. And it takes both parties of the agreement to amend the agreement, all right? Now, obviously the developer is amenable to amending the settlement agreement. But if you are not, then we're done. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So I don't believe that this agreement that sits before us today protects the public at all. MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I do. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And one of-- it doesn't. And one Page 177 March 24, 2015 of the reasons I don't feel it does is because there is a provision in here that allows for modification. And so if the Board chooses to modify this agreement, it can. And there are no deed restrictions in place on this golf course property, because those deed restrictions only come into play after the five buildings are built. So they don't even exist. Which means they could be eliminated if this agreement were to be modified by a future board. So you don't have a protection in here. While it may seem like there are protections in place, there in fact are none. In fact, that provision with respect to the deed restriction on that particular parcel that's the subject of this hearing is so weak that the Board could unilaterally waive it. It's that weak. This is a terrible agreement. It doesn't protect the public at all, and it leaves me very concerned. The Board cannot force this developer to give you deed restrictions. And the majority of people here in opposition today, from what I have heard, are from Glen Eden. I have not heard opposition from all other developments surrounding. It seems that this one particular neighborhood has very serious concerns. And I respect everything you say. However, I have to deal with protecting everybody, not just you. And I can't turn to this developer and tell this developer to give us the deed restrictions that he is offering as of the beginning of this hearing, which I feel are essential to protect your interest. And I feel getting those deed restrictions that are between you and that developer are so important with respect to what is being considered here today. I really think we have got to get them. And not only do I think we have to get them, I think we have to get those deed restrictions to include not only the density and not only the preserve and not only the docks, but also the location of these buildings. Because I know there are people out there who are not here today who want to make sure that this developer doesn't come in and change the location of a building so that it would block the view of an existing building. And Page 178 March 24, 2015 this agreement doesn't protect you against that. At all. And I have real concerns. I think that if we're going to do anything, we have to get these deed restrictions that benefit each and every community out there and that nothing can change unless there is 100 percent agreement with all the communities, including The Dunes, which Mr. Grant, you did not include The Dunes. The Dunes would have to be included. And I have -- and again, I am concerned, because the fact that this can be modified, the fact that there are no deed restrictions leaves everybody vulnerable. So I have a real problem here. Because as I have studied this at length, this deal is not a good deal. And the fact of the matter is I want a better deal. I want a better deal for the people on all levels. And I want security and protection for them on all levels. And the issue before us isn't just a golf course for 62 homes, it's ensuring that whatever we agree to here today really can't be changed in the future, because this agreement does not do that. And while I understand Commissioner Fiala had all the best intentions when she voted the way she did, and I understand we had a different County Attorney at the time, if I was sitting here back then, I will tell you it would have been very different. So I can't sit here and not see this agreement modified. And in fact, I can't sit here and not see the provisions which are in this agreement not incorporated into the PUD. I want these provisions in the PUD. Because then for sure it has to be a supermajority vote. And the fact that we can open this agreement with only three votes gives the public even less protection. So I don't feel comfortable about this at all. I did not sit on this Board at this time, but I was a constituent who was concerned when all of this was going on. And I had many discussions with Doug Fee -- where are you Doug -- back then. Page 179 March 24, 2015 as I would think we need to see. I mean, we need to include more associations. MR. GRANT: Fine. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it has to be 100 percent of all of them. MR. GRANT: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has to include the associations under the master associations. MR. GRANT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has to include The Dunes. MR. GRANT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has to also include that the location of these buildings as it currently sits in the SDP is preserved and none of them will move. And, you know, you won't shift, you won't like create more space between the buildings and spread it so it blocks the view of a certain building or, you know, somehow impedes the view of, you know, the -- for example, Tarpon Cove. MR. GRANT: Well, but I mean, the building locations are a function of the Land Development Code in compliance with all the parameters in the PUD. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we have a Site Development Plan. MR. GRANT: You have one now. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. MR. GRANT: I don't know that that means there couldn't be some tweaking to the location of those buildings. MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: There you go. AUDIENCE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner, why don't we let Mr. Grant -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Page 182 March 24, 2015 housing commitment, the agreement to remove the request to be removed from having to try to seek permits to build an artificial eagle nest, we're willing to do that. And the declaration of covenants, I think the additions that Commissioner Hiller has suggested are all fine. I think that it should not go into such detail as to lock down locations of buildings. I think that is a matter of site plan approval,just as is the matter of approving of the specific location of the single-family lots on the east parcel, were that to be approved. But the basics, the density, the heights, the protection of the preserves so that they couldn't be rezoned to do something different in the future on the west side, the buffers on the east parcel, and the protection against buildings where structure in the finger that extends out to U.S. 41, those all could be in there. I think they're perfectly reasonable, I think they provide significant community protection to the neighbors. COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may interrupt just on the 4yolp location of the buildings. You know, my concern is is that we have all these towers that are built to the south of where the last building for the current -- on the current site plan is. And I would hate to see all of a sudden that all these buildings -- I mean, I understand reasonable ok.)pi tweaking because of, you know, the way the land is -- the land lies, but not where it would materially shift one building so as to for example block the view of an existing building that has an unencumbered view and based on the current site plan never expected to have a building in front of it. MR. GRANT: Well, I think self interest would probably keep the developer from doing that because it wouldn't really help the values of the one that got blocked. But what I'm suggest-- look, the PUD document right now, and as it's proposed to be amended, has a detailed specification and table of parameters on height, setback and that sort of thing. That's what's Page 186 March 24, 2015 going to drive how site development plans get approved. And -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: We've got three site development plans that have already been approved. Is there any reason for you to believe that the building immediately to the south would move any further south? MR. GRANT: I don't think it's a matter of moving forth north or south, Commissioner. There might be some tweaking of the configuration of the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't have a problem with something like that. What I have a problem with is that there would be a material shift in the location of any of these buildings other than as has been approved now where it would, like I say, obstruct the view of an existing building. MR. GRANT: Well, you know, if you're talking about something broad stroke like that, perhaps, but I really don't believe the applicant is in a position to agree that yes, there are approved SDPs. But that doesn't mean that they couldn't seek to tweak the locations of those buildings a little bit. Or the shape of them a little bit. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like I said, it's not a question of the shape or immaterial shifts. My concern is, again, if it were to result in the SDP moving a building -- if it was -- let me put it this way, where the movement of the building would not be viewed as administrative. Nick? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we talking about this subject on our agenda -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- or have we moved to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, because I want to -- this goes to the restrictive covenants, like what will be in the restrictive covenants. Page 187 March 24, 2015 here today. With one caveat, and that is that these deed restrictions prepared by the petitioner are given to the homeowner association so their homeowner association attorneys can review them and deem them acceptable and adequately protective. So basically, you know, it would be -- is that what you're saying? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, we would come back on that limited issue. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We would come back on the limited issue. So we would approve -- MR. KLATZKOW: Unless you also wanted to in essence merge the settlement agreement into the PUD, in which case we'd come back with two issues. COMMISSIONER HILLER: If we merge the settlement agreement into the PUD, does that provide more protection for the public or less protection for the public? MR. KLATZKOW: It requires four votes rather than three to change it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it would require a public hearing -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to change it as opposed to a mere discussion. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, everything here is done by public hearing, but it would require an advertised public hearing, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, because for example if all we were looking at was to deal with a non land use issue -- MR. KLATZKOW: It would be -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- disagreement, we wouldn't have to have a public hearing. MR. KLATZKOW: You do everything on public hearings. But you -- Page 197 PAVESE Partner �l1C //T�� /T E[RmDirect dial:(239)336-6249 1 / Email:fat hrnnrFnvh.,,e Haut nlaNi r.,n 1833 Hendry Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 I P.O. Box 1507, Fort Mye , 'a 33902-1507 I (239)334-2195 I Fax(239) 332-2243 July 7, 2017 JUL 07 2017 11 Board of County Commissioners Mr. Matthew McLean By Collier County, Florida Engineering Services- 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Growth Management Division Naples, FL 34112 Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Collier County Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112-5749 Naples, FL 34112-5746 Re: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Administrative Appeal by Judith S. Palay,et al. Kalea Bay Phases 2-6 PL20160002242 Ladies and Gentlemen: Our firm represents Lodge/Abbott Associates, LLC and Lodge/Abbott Investments Associates,LLC. (collectively, "Lodge/Abbott"),the owners of Cocohatchee Bay PUD.We are co-counsel with Margaret Cooper, Esquire,of Jones Foster Johnston&Stubbs who handled the earlier litigation resulting in the 2008 Settlement Agreement regarding this project. I will be appearing at the appeal hearing on July 11, 2017 on behalf of Lodge/Abbott.Also appearing for Lodge/Abbott will be Karen Bishop of PMS Inc.of Naples,Inc.Ms.Bishop is the project entitlement facilitator. This appeal arises from a challenge to Lodge/Abbott's request for an amendment to a previously issued site development plan(SDP Amendment)for the project authorizing Buildings 2, 3 and 5. The original 2008 SDP for which an amendment is sought was approved by staff in the regular course of business. The Appellants make much of the fact that the County and the land owner entered into the Settlement Agreement resolving a dispute over the appropriate approach to a bald eagle management plan for the project. The Settlement Agreement and its provisions are not relevant to the appeal challenging the present amendment to the SDP. The SDP Amendment subject to this appeal is limited in scope and includes only issues normally addressed by staff in the regular course of business. 4632 VINCENNES BOULEVARD,SUITE 101 4524 GUN CLUB ROAD,SUITE 203 CAPE CORAL,FLORIDA 33904 WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33415 (239)542-3148 (561)471-1366 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7, 2017 Page 12 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons the appeal filed herein should be denied. Sincerely, PAVESE LAW FIRM / Katherine R. En1glish MLC/KRE:ebg cc: Ralf Brookes, Esquire Margaret L. Cooper, Esquire Michael Bosi Karen Bishop OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: July 5, 2017 TO: The Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals Commissioner Penny Taylor, Chairman, District 4 Commissioner Andy Solis, Vice-Chair, District 2 Commissioner Donna Fiala, CRAB Co-Chair, District 1 Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., CRAB Co-Chair, District 5 FROM: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney SUBJECT: Hearing on Administrative Appeal of the Issuance of Site Development Plan Amendment for Kalea Bay a/k/a Kinsale Condominium Phases II-VI in the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development("PUD") 1. General — In keeping with prior appeals of this nature before the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA"), the appeal hearing process is quasi-judicial in nature and is therefore subject to the provisions of Resolution Number 95-376, requiring proper disclosure of any Commissioners ex-parte contacts, communications, site visits, or investigations, or receipt of expert opinions. Likewise, the procedural requirements of Resolution Number 98-167 also apply. Copies of both resolutions are attached for your convenience. 2. The ultimate issues to be determined in the appeal are: a. Whether there is competent, substantial evidence to support the issuance of the final site development plan approval; and b. Whether the site development plan approval is contrary to the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan ("GMP") or that it does not comply with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, Land Development Code ("LDC"), particularly Section 10.02.03, or County ordinances including the applicable PUD Ordinance. 3. The appeal hearing before the BZA is informal. 4. Relevant evidence will be considered at the hearing. The Chairman of the BZA, with the assistance of the County Attorney, will determine what is relevant evidence. 5. The County Attorney recommends the following procedures: [17-CPS-01684/1349228/1116 Page 1 of 3 a. The court reporter administers the oath to those wishing to speak. If a speaker arrives at the hearing after the oath is given, the speaker must be sworn in before they can speak. b. The members of the BZA then make their individual ex-parte disclosures. All communications must be disclosed including letters, e-mails, phone calls, and meetings. Any personal investigation, such as a site visit, must also be disclosed. The subject matter of the communication and the identity of the person, groups or entity with whom the communication took place are all part of the disclosure. This applies to all communications that took place even before the appeal was filed. These disclosures must be made at the beginning of the hearing. The BZA must give any person who wishes to question its members concerning the ex-parte disclosure the opportunity to ask questions of it. This right may be waived by a failure to ask questions of the Board. c. The presentation of the appeal should be as follows: i. The appealing party presents his case. The time limit is one hour. This time limit includes any presentation by an expert witness. a) The Zoning Director may question the appealing party and/or any of his experts. The time limit is 10 minutes. b) The impacted property owner may question the appealing party or any of its experts. The time limit is 10 minutes. ii. Staff presents its case including the testimony of any expert witnesses. The time limit is one hour. a) The appealing party may ask questions. The time limit is 10 minutes. b) The impacted property owner may ask questions. The time limit is 10 minutes. iii. The impacted property owner presents its case including the testimony of any expert witnesses. a) The Zoning Director may ask questions. The time limit is 10 minutes. b) The appealing party may ask questions. The time limit is 10 minutes. iv. The members of the BZA may ask questions at any time during the proceedings. It is suggested that there be no time limit to the BZA's questions, subject,however, to the discretion of the Chair. [I7-CPS-01684/1349228/1]76 Page 2 of 3 limits v. Interested members of the public may then speak. Time per speaker, including any cross-examination, is 3 minutes. The BZA should only give consideration to "public testimony" that is relevant to the issues being discussed. vi. After Public Comment, in order, the Zoning Director, the appealing party, and the impacted property owner will each have 10 minutes to sum up. This summation could include any rebuttal. vii. Time limits may be extended at the discretion of the Chair. viii. Upon conclusion of the public speakers' presentations, the BZA should close the public hearing and commence discussion. ix. Upon conclusion of the discussion, the BZA will make its motion, second and then vote. A simple majority is required to approve the motion. The BZA shall either affirm the final site development plan approval or revoke the issuance of the final site development plan approval. Attachments: Resolution Number 95-376 Resolution Number 98-167 Section 250-58 Code of Laws and Ordinances [17-CPS-01684/1349228/1176 Page 3 of 3 JUN 2 0 te5 RESOLUTION NO. 95-376 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO ACCESS TO LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS; PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIAL; PROVIDING FOR ACCESS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS; AUTHORIZING INVESTIGA- TIONS AND RECEIPT OF INFORMATION; REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS; AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 'i5-754. WHEREAS, government in Florida is conducted in the sun- shine pursuant to Chapter 286, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the public should be able to voice its opinions to local elected public officials; and WHEREAS, elected and public officials are presumed to perform their duties in a lawful and proper manner; and WHEREAS, quasi-judicial decision-making must be based on competent, substantial evidence of record; and WHEREAS, local elected public officials have been obstructed or impeded from the fair and effective discharge of their sworn duties and responsibilities due to expansive inter- pretations of Jenninge. v, Dade County, a decision rendered by the Third District Court of Appeal; and WHEREAS, Section 5, Article I of the Florida Constitution gives the people the right peaceably to assemble, to instruct their representatives, and to petition for redress of griev- antes. NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: AUTHORITY Pursuant to Subsection 286.0115, Florida Statutes, Collier County has the authority to enact this Resolution which removes the presumption of prejudice from ex parte communications with local officials by establishing the process set forth herein to disclose such communications. SECTION TWO: DEFINITION As used in this Section, the term "local public official" means any elected or appointed public official holding a county -1- 600x O f n,,,... 191 • JUN 20 1995 office who recommends or takes quasi-judicial action as a member of such board or commission. SECTION THREE: ACCESS PERMITTED 1. Any person not otherwise prohibited by statute, charter provision, or ordinance may discuss with any local public official the merits of any matter on which action may be taken by the board or commission on which the local public official is a member. Adherence to the following procedures shall remove the presumption of prejudice arising from ex-parte communications with local public officials. �a) The substance of any ex-parte communication with a local public official which relates to quasi-judicial action pending before the official is not presumed prejudicial to the action if the subject of the communication and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place is disclosed and made a part of the record before final action on the matter. (b) A local public official may read a written communi- cation from any person. However a written communication that relates to quasi-judicial action pending before the local public official shall not be presumed prejudicial to the action and such written communication shall be made a part of the record of the board or commission before final action on the matter. (c) Local public officials may conduct investigations and site visits and may receive expert opinions regarding quasi- , judicial action pending before them. Such activities shall not be presumed prejudicial to the action if the existence of the investigation, site visit, or expert opinion is made a part of the record before final action on the matter. (d) Disclosure made pursuant to paragraphs (a) , (b) and (c) must be made before or during the public meeting at which a vote is taken on such matters, so that persons who have OW opin- (-2- SOOK W''1.' 11)9 JUN 2 01995 ions contrary to those expressed in the ex-pare communication are given a reasonable opportunity to refute or respond to the communication. SECTION FOUR: REPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 95-354 Resolution No. 95-354 is hereby repealed in its entirety. This Resolution adopted this 7.0th day of dune 1995, after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA r B y .BETTYE u. TTHEWS, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: KennetCuyl County Attorne mmvwl1 J 735 - 3 tarot (11)0 pv,r.193 RESOLUTION 98- 167 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Commissioners (Board), as the duly elected governing body for Collier County,holds regularly scheduled public hearings to discuss, review and act upon items of concern to and affecting the residents of Collier County;and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), serving as the local planning agency and the land development regulation commission as required by • F.S. §§ 163.3174 and 163.3194, holds regularly scheduled public hearings to discuss, review, act upon and make recommendations to the Board relative to items of concern to and affecting the residents of Collier County;and WHEREAS,included in these items may be advertised public hearings of a quasi- ' judicial or legislative nature;and WHEREAS, the public may wish to comment on these items scheduled for • considers ion before the Board or the CCPC;and EREAS, in order to maintain, equity, decorum and order at these regularly schedul d public hearings, it is necessary to establish standard procedures for presentations and public comment before the Board and the CCPC;and WHEREAS,the Board has prepared these rules in an attempt to encourage public a participation during advertised public hearings, including quasi-judicial hearings, in a mariner consistent with the requirements of law. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA that:.. l The Board of County Commissioners declares that the procedures set forth, • attached hereto, and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A, applicable to the • Board and the Collier County Planning Commission as stated in said Exhibit,are fair and • reasonable,and are hereby adopted. ' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to procedures for Board and CCPC presentations and public comment be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion,second and majority vote favoring same. Done this /7 day of , 1998. AIThST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ,.••• .A Dwight E.Brock,Clerk COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA • . • • -6‘'" � • 7 Barbara B.Berry,Chairman as to Chairman's f;,y ',W1$1gnature only. ''ikp,prpved as to form and legal sufficiency; • al`; • "LAIL 474eZt . David C.Weigel,Cou Attorney • 2 IIS Exhibit "A" Procedures for Presentations before the Collier County Board of Commissioners and as Applicable to the Collier County Planning Commission A. Public Comment on General Tojics: Members of the public may register to speak on general topics under the Public Comment portion of the Board of County Commissioner's (Board) agenda. The number of speakers permitted to register under public comment on any given agenda shall be limited to a maximum of five, unless the Chairman recognizes additional speakers. I. Speaker Registration: Individuals wishing to speak to the Board under public comment at any regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of County Commissioners shall register to speak in writing on the form provided by the County prior to the public comment portion of the agenda being called by the Chairman. TI. Time Limits: a) Public Comment: 1. Maximum 5 minutes per speaker. B. Public Petitions: Public Petitions are limited to a single speaker. In general, the Board will not take action on public petition items on the day the petition is presented,but may direct staff to take action, or bring back the item to the Board at a future date for consideration. The County Administrator may defer scheduling a public petition for a reasonable period of time in order to allow sufficient time for staff to review the content and thus prepare for questions from the Board. I. Registration: Individuals wishing to make a public petition to the Board of County Commissioners shall present such a request in writing to the County Administrator a minimum of 13 days prior to the Board meeting date on which the public petition is requested to be heard. The written request shall include the name(s) and address(es) of all petitioners, including a primary contact name, address and telephone number,and shall state the nature of the petition, including any exhibits and/or back up material which may be pertinent to the petition. IL Time Limits:Maximum 10 minutes per speaker. C. Advertised Public Hearings: For procedural purposes, advertised public hearings fall into two categories: those which are quasi-judicial in nature; and other types of advertised public hearings, including those which are legislative in nature. I. Ouasi-Judicial Public Hearings: 1 a) Purpose and Intent: The Board has prepared these rules in an attempt to encourage public participation during quasi-judicial hearings in a manner consistent with the requirements of law. As part of that effort and within the confines of the law, the Board intends its hearings to be informal while recognizing the need for certain structure to maintain orderly hearings. Notwithstanding the procedures established by resolution,the Board may modify these procedures to effectuate the effective presentation of evidence. b) Applicability of these Procedures: (1) Ouasi-Judicial Proceedings. These procedures apply to all quasi-judicial proceedings heard by the Board and the CCPC regardless of the capacity in which the Board is sitting. Quasi-Judicial actions concern the implementation of policy, which has already been set, and affording the Board, and in some instances the CCPC, limited discretion in deciding whether to approve or deny a land use permit. These include land use actions which have an impact on a limited number of persons or property owners on identifiable parties and interests, where the decision is contingent on a fact or facts arrived at from distinct alternatives presented at a hearing. Examples of quasi-judicial proceedings include but are not limited to: site specific rezonings (provided they involve policy implementation); development of regional impact hearings; conditional use permits; variances; boat dock extension petitions; and administrative appeals. 1 (2) Legislative Proceedings. Utilization of these procedures by the Board or the CCPC when sitting in a legislative capacity does not change the character of the legislative proceeding nor does it confer any additional rights or remedies upon any person or party. C) Pre-Hearing Submittals: (1) Application. An applicant (as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code)shall make application as provided in the procedures established for the individual decision being requested. (2) Staft7Agencv Recammendatior}. To the extent that the applicable procedure requires a staff review and written recommendation to be presented to the Board, such written recommendation shall be completed and available for public inspection no later than ten calendar days prior to the hearing before the Board. (3) Written Presentation.No later than one week prior to the scheduled public hearing before the Board, any applicant, proponent, or opponent may submit any written arguments, evidence, explanations, studies, reports, petitions or other documentation tl_s_41 for intended consideration by the Board in support of or in opposition o the application. In order to be included in a Board or CCPC Agenda packet, any written arguments, evidence, explanations, studies, reports, petitions or other documentation must be submitted to the appropriate staff no later than three weeks prior to the scheduled hearing before the respective body. All written 2 submissions, not including pictorial displays (maps, graphs and the like) must be on 8-1/2 x 11-inch paper. No written materials will be accepted by the Board at its hearing unless,at e :oard's •rscre on, accep ce is necessary to decide the issue. Written comments submitted shall be considered and entered into the record of the meeting in accordance with subsection C.I.d)(4)below. d) Public Hearings before the Board or the CCPC: (1) General. It is the expectation that the hearing will be informal. All members of the public who address the Board or the CCPC shall utilize the speaker's podium to allow their comments to be recorded. Each speaker shall state his or her name and address for the record. Additionally, speakers shall indicate whether they are speaking on behalf of themselves or others. (a) Time Limitation Guidelines, It is expected that presentations will be organized and efficiently presented. As a guideline to presentations, in addition to the written comments submitted as part of the preliminary record, it is expected that persons of the following status will prepare their discussions and comments to be completed within the prescribed time limits: 1. Staff shall be responsible for presenting the case on behalf of Collier County and shall limit their presentations to twenty-(20)minutes. 2. The applicant shall present his or her entire case in twenty (20)minutes. 3. Expert witnesses shall be limited to ten (10) minutes each. 4. Persons who have been authorized to represent an organization with five(5) or more members or a group of five(5)or more persons should limit their presentation to ten (10) minutes. It is expected that others in the organization or group waive their time. 5. All other persons may speak for a maximum of five (5) minutes each. 6. No speaker may give his or her time to any other speaker. At the discretion of the Chairman th any speaker may be extended. (b) Registration of Speakers. Persons who desire to speak on an item shall, prior to the item being called to be heard by the Chairman, - register with the County Administrator on the forms provided. Five (5) or more persons deemed by the Board to be associated together or otherwise represent a common point of view, as 3 proponents or opponents on any item may be requested to select a spokesperson. (2) Order and Subject of Appearance: To the extent possible, the following shall be the order of the proceeding: (a) Preliminary Statement. The Chairman shall read a preliminary statement once at the beginning of the quasi-judicial hearing portion of the agenda outlining the procedure, which shall be followed. (b) Sworn Testimony. The applicant, staff; and all witnesses requesting to speak shall be collectively sworn. Agreement with Staff s Recommendation. If the applicant or agent of the applicant agrees with staff's recommendation and wishes to waive his or her right to present additional evidence, and if no commissioner or anyone from the audience wishes to speak for or against the quasi-judicial agenda item,the Board may vote on the item based upon staffs presentation and the materials in the agenda back-up. X (d) Initial Presentation by Staff. County staff shall make the initial presentation to the Board regarding any item under consideration. After completion of the staff presentation, the Board may make inquiries of staff at this time. An applicant or appellant may ask questions of, or seek clarification from, staff by request through the Chairman at the time that party makes its initial presentation to the Board. (e) Applicant's Presentation. After staff presentation, the applicant(s) shall be allowed to make a presentation to the Board based on the time limitation guidelines outlined in the preceding subsection(d) (1)(a), above. During and after the applicants' presentation, the Board shall have an opportunity to comment or ask questions of or seek clarification from the applicant. The Board may also allow staff to comment, ask questions or seek clarification from the applicant(s)at this time. (f) Speakers. After Board and staff inquiry of the applicant,speakers shall be allowed to speak based on the time limitation guidelines outlined in the preceding subsection(d)(1)(a), above.During and after a speaker's presentation,the Board shall have an opportunity to comment or ask questions of or seek clarification from such speaker. The Board may also allow staff to comment, ask questions of or seek clarification from speakers. (g) Staff Response and Summary. The staff shall be allowed an opportunity for response to the presentations by the applicant, proponents and opponents and a summary with any changes in position after consideration of relevant public comment.Proponents 4 and opponents who believe that the staff response includes errors of fact or Iaw may ask for and may be allowed an opportunity to point out such errors of fact or law. (h) Applicant's Rebuttal Presentation. 1. Applicant's rebuttal shall be allowed only on items where there is an applicant other than the Board or Board staff. After staff response, the applicant shall be allowed an opportunity for rebuttal. Rebuttal shall be limited to five (5) minutes unless otherwise set by the Board. Rebuttal shall only address previous comments. 2. Staff, who believe that the rebuttal presentation includes an error of fact or law, may ask for and may be allowed an opportunity to point out such error of fact or law. (i) Board and Staff Inquiry. After all presentations have been made as outlined above, the Board shall have a final opportunity to comment or ask questions. The Board may allow staff to respond to comments previously made at this time. (j) Limit on Presentations. No person who has made a presentation for or against an item at a given meeting shall be allowed to make additional comments,unless requested to do so by the Board. (k) Closing of Public Comment. In those matters on which public comment is heard by the Board, the Chairman shall close the public comment portion of the meeting (on that item) upon the conclusion of the last speaker's comments or, in the Board's discretion, if no new relevant information is being presented. No additional public comments shall be allowed, except in specific response to questions by members of the Board. (3) Miscellaneous Items: (a) Continuing Record/Speakers Qualifications. The Clerk to the Board("Clerk") shall maintain a file with the most recent copies of resumes previously filed with the Clerk by county staff presenters. All other persons testifying on issues requiring educational, occupational and other experience who wish to be qualified as experts shall submit their qualifications in written form for the Board's approval to speak as expert witnesses. (b) Organizational or Group Speakers. Prior to presenting his/her case, any person representing an organization or other persons shall indicate, in writing, the organization or group he/she represents and how he/she received authorization to speak on behalf of such organization or group of persons. The Board may make further inquiry into the represented authority of such person if necessary. 5 (c) Restrictions on Testimony or Presentation of Evidence. Notwithstanding any provisions herein, any Board member may interrupt any presentation that contains matters which need not be considered in deciding the matter then before the Board for consideration. At any Board proceeding, the Chairman, unless overruled by majority of the Board members present,may restrict or terminate presentations which in the chairman's judgment are frivolous,unduly repetitive or out of order. (d) Public Officials. Notwithstanding other provisions hereof, the Board may allow any elected or appointed public official, or representative thereof, to appear and make presentations at any ' time with regard to matters under consideration. Continued Public Hearings.In any matter where it is known that a lb scheduled public hearing will be continued to a future date certain, the staff report may be abbreviated and public comment may be limited to those persons who state that they believe they can not be available to speak on the date to which the public hearing is being continued. Such persons may make their comments at the current meeting; provided, however, that upon making their comments, such persons shall waive the right to repeat or make substantially] the same presentation at any subsequent meeting on the sarhe subject. This waiver shall not preclude such persons from making different presentations based on new information or from offering response to other persons' presentation,if otherwise allowable,at any subsequent meeting. (4) The Record (a) Automatically Included in the Record: The following documents shall automatically be included in the record of the hearing before the Board: (1) The record from any preliminary hearing, the agenda packet, the staff report, and the transcript of the hearing before the Board; (2) Written comments and documents previously entered into the record at a prior Board meeting on the particular matter. (b) Items Which Shall Be Placed in the Record: Any additional documents,exhibits,diagrams,petitions, letters or other materials presented in support of, or in opposition to, an item to be considered by the Board shall be entered into the record, as long as it was received by the Board's Clerk or the applicable Collier County department seven(7)days prior to the date of the hearing. 6 (c) Additional Evidence. Except pursuant to subsection C)(3)above, Written Presentation, any additional written or documentary evidence filed within seven (7) days of the date of the hearing shall not become part of the record. (d) Custodian.The Clerk shall be the official custodian of the record. (e) Exhibits. Unless an oversized exhibit is absolutely essential, documentary paper or photographic exhibits should not exceed 24 inches by 36 inches and, if mounted on a backboard, shall be removable therefrom. All documentary evidence should be capable of being folded and filed. H. Other Public Hearings: The following rules apply to advertised public hearings other than those which are quasi-judicial in nature, including those advertised public hearings which are legislative in nature. a) Pre-Hearing Submittals: (1) Application. An applicant (as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code)shall make application as provided in the procedures established for the individual decision being requested. (2) Staff/Agency Recommendation. To the extent that the applicable procedure requires a staff review ands written recommendation to be presented to the Board, that written recommendation shall be completed and available for public inspection no later than ten calendar days prior to the hearing before the Board. (3) Written Presentation.No later than one week prior to the scheduled public hearing before the Board, any applicant, proponent, or opponent may submit, in support of or in opposition to the issue which is the subject of the advertised public hearing, any written arguments, evidence, explanations, studies,reports,petitions or other documentation to staff for intended consideration by the Board. All written submissions, not including pictorial displays(maps,graphs and the like)must be on 8-1/2 x 11-inch paper. b) Public Hearing: (1) General. All members of the public who address the Board shall utilize the speaker's podium to allow their comments to be recorded, and shall identify themselves by name and local addresses, if applicable. Further, any speaker speaking on behalf of an organization or group of individuals (exceeding five) shall indicate such and shall cite the source of such authority whether by request,petition,vote,or otherwise. (a) Time Limitation Guidelines. It is expected that presentations will be organized and efficiently presented. As a guideline to presentations, in addition to the written comments submitted as part of the preliminary record, it is expected that persons in the 7 following status will prepare their discussions and comments to be completed within the prescribed time limits: 1. Staff shall be responsible for summarizing the item for the Board and shall limit such presentation to a maximum of twenty(20)minutes. 2. For advertised public hearing items (other than those which are quasi-judicial in nature), where there is an applicant other than the Board of County Commissioners or staff, following the staff summary of the item the applicant will have an opportunity to make a maximum (10)minute presentation. 3. Persons who have been authorized to represent an organization with five(5) or more members or a group of five(5)or more persons should limit their presentation to ten (10) minutes. It is expected that others in the organization or group waive their time. 4. All other persons may speak for a maximum of five (5) minutes each. 5. No speaker may give his or her time to any other speaker. At the discretion of the Chairman, the time allowed for any speaker may be extended (b) Speaker Registration. Persons, other than staff and the applicant (where applicable), wishing to speak on an advertised public hearing item shall,prior to the item being heard,register with the County Administrator on the forms provided. Five (5) or more persons deemed by the Board to be associated together or otherwise represent a common point of view, as proponents or opponents on any item may be requested to select a spokesperson. (2) Miscellaneous Items: (a) Organizational or Group Speakers. Prior to making his/her comments, any person representing an organization or other persons shall indicate who he/she represents and how he/she received authorization to speak on behalf of such organization or group of persons. The Board may make further inquiry into the represented authority of such person if necessary. (b) Restrictions on Comments Deemed Not Germane to the Item. Notwithstanding any provisions herein, any Board member may interrupt and/or stop any presentation that discusses matters that need not be considered in deciding the matter then before the Board for consideration. At any Board proceeding,the Chairman, - unless overruled by majority of the Board members present, may 8 restrict or terminate presentations which in the chairman's judgment are frivolous,unduly repetitive or out of order. (c) Public Officials. Notwithstanding other provisions hereof, the Board may allow any elected or appointed public official or representative thereof, to appear and make presentations at any time with regard to matters under consideration. (d) Continued Public Hearings.In any matter where it is known that a scheduled public hearing will be continued to a future date certain, the staff report may be abbreviated and public comment may be limited to those persons who state that they believe they cannot be available to speak on the date to which the public hearing is being continued. Such persons may make their comments at the current meeting; provided, however, that upon making their comments, such persons shall waive the right to repeat or make substantially the same presentation at any subsequent meeting on the same subject. D. Other Agenda Items Before the Board: In addition to public hearing, public comment and public petition items, with the approval of the Board, members of the public may speak on other Board agenda items. Registration: Persons wishing to speak on agenda items other than advertised public hearing items,public comment on general topics and public petition items, shall register to speak on the form provided by the County prior to the item being called by the Chairman to beheard. H Time Limits: Where the Board has requested or otherwise authorized public input on agenda items other than public hearing, public comment on general topic, or public petitions items, speakers will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. 9 Sec. 250-58. -Appeal from decision of administrative official. (a) Appeals to a board of zoning appeals or the governing body, as the case may be, may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer,department, board,or bureau of the governing body or bodies in the area affected by the administrative decision, determination or requirement made by the administrative official. Such appeals shall be taken within 30 days by filing with the administrative official a written notice specifying the grounds thereof. The administrative official shall forthwith transmit to the board all papers, documents, and maps constituting the record of the administrative action from which an appeal is taken. (b) Due public notice of the hearing on the administrative appeal shall be given. (c) Upon the hearing, any party may appear in person or by attorney. A decision shall be reached by the appellate body within 30 days of the hearing; otherwise, the action appealed from shall be deemed affirmed. (Laws of Fla. ch. 67-1246, § 16; Laws of Fla.ch.2001-344, § 1) 1 Page 1 1.01EUE0571E To: _ 4o,JA)/4 00/-44 JUL 0 5 2011 From: Donna Reed Caron Date: July 2, 2017 By Re: Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and PUD In a thinly veiled attempt to justify actions antithetical to good planning, staff issued a memorandum dated April 28, 2017 trying to explain the application of development standards for the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. The staff approval letter spends a great deal of time trying to clarify their actions and quoting the"clear language" of Florida Statutes. Critical to the discussion currently being brought forward by citizens is that staff is not following the Settlement Agreement and all of it's component parts in the reviewing process. The following is attempt to detail submitted changes in both clear language and unambiguous facts. Building One is 50 feet wider than shown on the original SDPs. The apparent intent is to make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of another whole building to the plan and further exacerbating the building separation issue. Clear and unambiguous. The developer has added twelve guest suites as accessory units. However, the PUD lists guest suites and cabanas as permitted uses and they are to be counted as part of the total number of residential units: 590. Four 20 story buildings each with 120 units equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Plus twelve guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So as of this date, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of units allowed. Clear and unambiguous. Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top structures such as the pool, community meeting room, and fitness center. According to the PUD, building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the upper most finished ceiling elevation of the roof structure. Also County Land Development Code staff and Zoning & Land Development staff issued an official clarification on the issue of roof-top accessory structures: SC 2004-05, "... the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased height, and refers to unenclosed, unroofed, and un-air conditioned space for recreational use." Clear and unambiguous. A housing unit (a habitable structure) has been added to the garage level, conflicting further with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. Clear and unambiguous. The plans that exist at the County are inconsistent with those submitted to South Florida Water Management - - - preventing any factual analysis to be conducted. For example the SFWMD plans show the addition of two four-plex units, further exceeding the allowed unit count. Nothing clear or unambiguous about this. Building separations are less than code minimums of 1/2 the sum of the building heights, and less than the already reduced and adjusted separations (as per PUD footnote#3) shown on the SDPs attached to the PUD and Settlement Agreement. To quote from the CCPC review that was accepted and approved by Board action, "However, as a result of language in the PUD, the CCPC recommends reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. As an alternative to the reduction in separation, greater distances could be provided by moving alternating towers closer to Vanderbilt Drive." Those separations are as follows: building 1 to 2, 153 feet; building 2 to 3, 126 feet; building 3 to 4, 127 feet; building 4 to 5, 341 feet. The Settlement Agreement, PUD, Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission, and three SDPs reviewed and approved by staff were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 22, 2008. This action was taken in total as part of the Summary Agenda. Again, The Board approved all documents as presented without objection from the County Attorney, County Manager, county staff, the petitioner, the petitioners agent or citizens. Clear and unambiguous. Staff cites several examples of supposed historical application of the administrative reduction of building separations. However, only one of the examples represents a high rise tower project and it is a side yard set back not a building separation situation. In this instance, staffs action was understandable since the Waterpark Place building is not next to another high rise but rather a four lane tree lined parking area leading to a tram to Pelican Bay beach. There are no past projects analogous to the Cocohatchee/Kalea Bay project. Clear and unambiguous. Besides the clear and unambiguous language of Florida statutes being an important tenet, ignoring any portion of an ordinance or law or reducing the language to an absurdity is equally important. Staffs interpretation that there is no limit to reducing building separations because of clauses such as `footnote #3', is not a credible interpretation. Additionally, staff cannot ignore the fact that the CCPC recommendation was included with the PUD, Settlement Agreement and Bald Eagle Management Plan on the Summary Agenda and was approved by The Board on April 22, 2008. The citizens of Collier County harbor serious concerns that must be addressed in a timely fashion. Upholding the Settlement in it's entirety is not only reasonable and proper, but critical to the community's continued trust in the rule of law, our ordinances, the sanctity of contracts and settlements, and of course to the integrity of and respect for our system of county governance and the people elected and appointed to assure equal treatment for all. Thank you. Donna Reed Caron n Oh) 790 Wiggins Bay Drive rtk ������ Naples, FL. 34110 � y 239-514-2780 239-280-6857 BrownleeMichael Subject: Meet w/ Diane Ebert re: Kalea Bay, Med Marijuanna, etc. Location: Texas Tony's Start: Wed 3/1/2017 11:30 AM End: Wed 3/1/2017 1:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: FialaDonna 1 BrownleeMichael Subject: Diane Rupnow&Judy Palay re: Kalea Bay Development Location: DF Office Start: Wed 2/22/2017 3:00 PM End: Wed 2/22/2017 3:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: FialaDonna 402-580-1545 1 BrownleeMichael From: Ron Bowling [ron@acresplumbing.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:23 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Dear Collier County Commissioners, I wanted to send my personal concerns in reference to possible delays in the construction of the next building at the Kalea Bay project. I work for a plumbing company that is currently working on the Kalea Bay project.With the planned start of building#2 we are able to keep our staffing working anticipating the next building to start. If it does not, there will be layoffs due to lack of work. I personally have struggled as many others for the last 8 to 9 years trying to survive the hardships in the most drastic down turn in construction this area has seen. It was a long, slow recovery and we are just now becoming hopeful in our futures in the construction trade and regaining some ground. I am very sensitive in concern with growth and over-development and believe our local government has found a balance for everyone in my personal experience of living here for over 40 years. I was fond of the Wiggins Pass area in the 70's when there was little more than a Marina and some small developments. That is not the case these days and much of that area is built on and believe the very people complaining reside in the adjacent areas probably have not been here for very many years. Nor do they likely reside here year round or earn a living here. Kalea Bay has already been approved and site developed for the future construction of these buildings.The potential opportunities for our working residents and the revenue to local business will be felt county wide and will effect hundreds upon hundreds of the collier working class and business owner residents. Please represent us in allowing this building to proceed as planned. Our livelihoods are counting on you. Sincerely, Ron Bowling Acres&Son Plumbing Inc. 5701 Houchin St Suite#1 Naples, Fl 34109 Office 239-597-5031 Fax 239-597-3740 ron@acresplumbing.com www.acresplumbing.com BrownleeMichael From: Chris.Brasher@Ferguson.com Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:39 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: FW: Kalea Bay Bld #2 To the Collier County Commissioners, I understand that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned citizen who is heavily involved in the construction industry as I work for Ferguson Enterprise which employees 700+associates(quality jobs+ benefits) in Florida in our plumbing division alone.A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be directly affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. Ferguson is very involved in both our communities and by providing quality opportunities, as well as teaching, coaching,training, and furthering developing people's skills. Our industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy.Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Chris Brasher Ferguson a Wolseley Company Director of Branch Management-Florida District 10355 S Orange Ave. Orlando, Fl 32824 0: (407)856-5161 M: 239-823-0935 Ferguson Online-Always Open! http://www.fergusononline.com 1 BrownleeMichael From: Rene Acres-Hatch [Rene@acresplumbing.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:51 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Kalea Bay Donna Fiala, I am writing to express my concerns for halting the construction of Kalea Bay 2. I have resided in Naples for over 48 years and have been employed in the construction industry for over 30 years.Tourism is our industry here in Naples and construction is a large part of what keeps Naples growing to accommodate the new comers in our area. Halting the progress of Kalea Bay would have impacts on several areas that should be of concern to ALL Naples residents, not just the few in Glen Eden who might have their view obstructed. Glen Eden should take into consideration that they were entitled to develop their community without opposition from others in the area. Please know the decision that you make concerning this project will set precedence for all future projects and will affect the employment of hundreds of construction workers. I am asking that you please honor your approval of the development of Kalea Bay. Sincerely, Rene' Rene' Acres-Hatch R Acres Plumbing Co LLC 1911 Seward Ave, Suite 3 Naples, FL. 34109 PH: 239-598-0800 FX: 239-597-1590 Rene@acresplumbing.com ACRES - Ai:: ti PLUMBING ‘174.11..- t. --ww ❑ ,:.-a 24 HOUR EMERGENCY SERVICE Website Like us on Facebook BrownleeMichael From: Aris Dougherty[adougherty1530@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:19 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: KALEA BAY 2 Hello, My name is Aris Dougherty, I reside in Collier County and work in the construction industry. My job will be directly affected in a very negative way if Kalea Bay 2 is halted. I don't understand why anyone wants to hold back Naples' growth and economy. Please consider the hundreds of people that will be affected if this project is halted. Thank you very much for your consideration, Aris Dougherty Naples, FL i BrownleeMichael From: Jessica Judd [jessicajudd@crsmithllc.com] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:54 AM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.neT; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: Kalea Bay Bid#2 Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.tiff To the Collier County Commissioners, I have just been informed that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned Naples local (over 31 years in Naples and two generations before) who is heavily involved in the construction industry as I work for C.R. Smith which contracts and manages over 50+subcontractors that employ hundreds of workers in Florida in our contracting alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project.The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank you for your time! Jessica Judd Assistant to Chad Smith/Office Manager lessicajudd@crsmithllc.com P: (239) 596-8003 F: 239.288.0575 C.R. SMITH, LLC 1 BrownleeMichael From: Charlie Bauman [Charlie@acresplumbing.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:47 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Ron Bowling; Nancy Farnsworth Subject: Kalea Bay Building#2 Dear Collier County Commissioners, I am currently an employee of Acres and Son Plumbing, Inc. , a Collier County company for some 40 years. I have worked for Acres and Son Plumbing for over 8 of the past 15 years. I personally worked at the Kalea Bay job site full time as an assistant project manager from 04/01/16 until 12/31/16. Presently our staff at Kalea Bay site is only 20%of what it was because Building#2 has not yet started. Acres and Son Plumbing has already been negatively impacted because Building#2 has not started. If building 2 is not constructed,Acres will be even more seriously harmed as will my work with the company. In addition to Acres, many other subcontractors are being negatively affected. Hundreds of construction industry jobs are at risk if Kalea Bay Building#2 and further buildings are not allowed to be constructed. I sincerely ask for your consideration to allow the construction of Building#2 and further buildings at Kalea Bay to proceed. Thank you for your consideration. Kind Regards, Charlie Bauman Acres&Son Plumbing, Inc. 5701 Houchin Street, Suite 1 Naples, FL 34109 239-597-5031 Cell 239-734-0804 Charlie@acresplumbing.com BrownleeMichael From: Kevin Jensen [kevin@jensenunderground.com] Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2017 2:19 PM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.neT'; 'PennyTaylor@colliergov.net'; 'BurtSaunders@colliergov.net'; 'AndySolis@colliergov.net'; 'DonnaFiala@colliergov.net' Subject: Kalea Bay Buildings#2,3,4,5 Dear Collier County Commissioners, I understand that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned business owner who is heavily involved in the Kalea Bay project.This project has been on our books for over a year and in our projection of work for our employees. If this project were to be cancelled it would put a hardship on Jensen Underground Utilities, therefore possibly causing layoffs within our company.We currently employ 95 wonderful people who have families. Not only do we provide a pay check to our employees, we also provide 100% health insurance coverage. Many of the employees purchase health insurance for their families through their hard work a pay checks that they have earned.A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay.Jensen Underground Utilities is very involved in both our communities and by providing quality opportunities, as well as teaching, coaching,training, and furthering developing people's skills.Our industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank You For Your Consideration, Kevin Jensen JENSEN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, INC. 5585 Taylor Rd. Naples, FL 34109 239-597-0060 Ext. 5 239-597-0061—Fax 239-825-1638—Cell Email: Kevin@iensenunderground.com Website: www.iensenunderground.com 1 BrownleeMichael From: Nancy Farnsworth [tennis.nut@mindspring.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:37 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Hearing Categories: PRINTED Dear County Commissioners, As a native Neapolitan, I have seen our county go through many many changes in my 53 years. Some have been very hard to take, yet overall I believe our County has been lead in a good direction with a balanced growth. My livelihood for over 30 years has been in the construction industry. The company I work for made it through the very difficult downturn in the housing/construction market, however only 21 of 192 employees kept their jobs and those who were still employed struggled with significant pay cuts and less working hours. Fortunately, the past couple years it has turned around. My employer is directly impacted by Kalea Bay. There were 25 employees who directly worked on building 1 and 5 others who did Kalea Bay work at the office including myself. If the Kalea Bay building 2 does not proceed, numerous employees, full time residents and your constituents will lose their jobs. Please stand firm against those who oppose this project that has already been approved. Thank you for your service and your consideration in this matter. Nancy Farnsworth 7818 Emerald Circle Naples, FL BrownleeMichael From: Daniel Fusco [twcfusco@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 11:50 AM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay opposition Attachments: imagel.jpeg; ATT00001.txt Hello, Just a quick note in regards to the petition against phase 2 of Kalea Bay. I am the owner/operator of Woodworkers Cabinet of Naples, Inc and we work closely with CR Smith and his team to manufacture custom cabinetry and millwork for his clients. We have grown our company to over 30 employees and we primarily service CR Smith and the Kalea Bay project. We have recently purchased a second location down the street from our current shop on Taylor Rd. to enable us to keep up with the needs of the Kalea project and we are extremely excited for the remaining phases of this development. Please consider the impact on the families who are counting on this project for years to come and will need this to help pay for their kids college. (I have 5 of them! ) Thank you and we appreciate our beautiful town and all the opportunities it offers to the trades people! Sincerely, Daniel Fusco 1 BrownleeMichael From: Andy Cathey [acathey@rosenmaterials.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 7:58 AM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Phase 2 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged To the Collier County Commissioners, I have been a resident of Collier County since 1987 and part of the Construction industry since 1989. It has come to my attention that there is some opposition to the 2nd phase of Kalea Bay. My company, Rosen Materials, supplies building materials and supplied Kalea Bay Phase 1. During that time we added additional employees that have supported Collier County in many other areas. I am concerned with any decision to stop this project as it will continue to provide our employees (currently at 32) continued employment. The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and growing economy. Thank you for your time! Andy Cathey Regional Manager-West Florida 239-253-8529 acathey@rosenmaterials.com ROSEN MITER1ALS BrownleeMichael From: Teale Mueller[tealemueller@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 11:59 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners, My name is Teale Mueller. I am a sales associate and team member that has been instrumental in the day to day sales process of the Kalea Bay Community. I have also been involved in general real estate in Collier County for years. Our team has been involved with so many aspects of representing this wonderful Kalea Bay community and has been immersed in assisting not only our Kalea Bay buyers, but also providing information to and fostering relationships with hundreds of our Collier County full time and seasonal residents who have visited our site.. I am in a position to see the excitement of our future Kalea Bay residents, many who have worked, planned and saved over many years to be in a position to fulfill their dream of living in a community such as Kalea Bay. Another great aspect of being involved in this project is that I have also had the opportunity to see that hundreds of local men and women from many different companies/trades are proudly invested in the employment opportunities a project like Kalea Bay creates. From cleaners, to landscapers, construction workers, designers, material suppliers, cooperating realtors all who have benefited and have been able to provide a better quality of life for themselves and their families. Sometimes our society highlights and amplifies the negative opinions of a few people. This is unfortunate. I believe we all have a responsibility to open our eyes and ears to all of the good and opportunity a project like Kalea Bay presents to so many in our community. Kalea Bay will have such a positive impact in supporting our current and future local economy. There is no doubt that this unique and beautiful community will improve the lives of many for years to come. I thank you for your time and consideration, Teale Mue .ales Associate Wilson&Assoiate. 1)9K)OIC Coast Ronci Naples.rL -no 259-795-arta (0) 239-450-4-806 (c) tt MI\ Wilson Associates h,a,a1 kiR�t lFit• V4 NL';F'x�'� 1 BrownleeMichael From: Renee Gaddis [renee@reneegaddis.com] Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 1:15 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; BurtSaunders@colliergov.n; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay PUD Attachments: renee letter July 6 2017.pdf Renee Gaddis Principal Designer ` RENEE GADDIS INTERIORS ; t. 239.431.8352 m. 239.848.5794 a. 9915 Tamiami Trail N, Suite 1 Naples, FL 34108 renee@reneegaddis.com www.reneegaddis.com BrownleeMichael From: Linda Crowe [linda.crowe@progressivewaste.com] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:55 PM To: "BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt Subject: Kalea Bay Tower#2 Importance: High To Collier County Commissioners, I am very disappointed there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. As an informed resident of Southwest Florida and who is heavily involved in the construction and real estate industry, it's unfortunate to hear of opposition to growth within our community. Not only am a licensed Real Estate Agent, I also am fortunate enough to be employed by Waste Connections, who provides hauling and disposal services on construction sites. Kalea Bay Building#1 has not only provided a significant employment opportunity for construction workers who work and live within our community; but has also benefited Southwest Florida by attracting affluent residents who have purchased condominiums in Tower 1. The benefits this project brings within our community reaches far beyond today. It supports our community for many years down the road by the jobs it creates to operate Kalea Bay and the opportunity it brings for outlying existing businesses as well as future business opportunities.The increase in tax revenue for Collier County should also be an important topic not be overlooked. We want to look for future growth and opportunity in Southwest Florida and opposing the second phase of Kalea Bay does not support our local industry of construction, tourism/snowbirds, and real estate markets. Hundreds of companies and probably an estimated thousand workers would be directly affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. The real estate and construction market has went through some very tough times and to stop the second phase of Kalea Bay would be going backwards. It is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy considering what we have been through. I hope that we can continue to grow as a community and every one of whose who work and live within this community can prosper and enjoy the life Southwest Florida has to offer.Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Linda Crowe I Territory Manager Waste Connections, Inc. 2289 Bruner Lane, Fort Myers, FL 33912 0:239-489-1716 I F: 239-489-1652 I C:239-229-5473 W7s I CoNNIt 7N',, IN(;. 1 BrownleeMichael From: pureplumbingl4 [pureplumbing14@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:00 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Kalea Bay To the Collier County Commissioners, I have just been informed that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned Naples Resident/Business Owner, whom is heavily involved in the construction industry. I work for C.R. Smith, LLC., which contracts and manages over 50+ subcontractors that employ hundreds of workers in Florida in our contracting alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company, but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates. All the outlying businesses that are affected by the construction as well as the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years. It is encouraging to see and be part of a positive growing economy. Thank you for your time!" Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone 1 BrownleeMichael From: John Wilkinson [John@sunmasterinc.com] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:10 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay To whom it may concern, I am a business owner that employs approx. 50 people Our company is heavily reliant on the construction industry for our living. Projects like Kalea Bay are the lifeblood of our revenue. So when we hear about a project such as Kalea Bay it allows us to more confidently invest in other areas of our economy as consumers. I have lived my whole life (48 years) in Naples so I do understand the idea of pushback against new developments such as this. But typically it doesn't come from natives, it comes from folks that took advantage moving into past developments that some may have been opposed to when they were going in. It makes me shake my head when I think about the "close the door behind me" mentality that happens.As I understand it the Kalea Bay development of 5 condo buildings has already been cleared but there are those who are trying to have it stopped. I sincerely hope you all take into consideration the trickle down effect that will happen if you stop the movement forward of this project.We are a small company but at least 1/3 of my people are currently involved with the workings of this project.Their jobs may not exist without it. When I go to jobsite meetings I see hundreds of people being employed on this site that again would be unemployed if it is shut down. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please make the right choice for us. Sincerely, John Wilkinson President Sunmaster of Naples 900 Industrial Blvd Naples, FL 34104 239-261-3581 ofc. 239-261-7499 fax. 239-253-4773 cell. www.sunmasterinc.com 1 BrownleeMichael From: scott@amssoundandvision.com Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:28 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Cc: chadrsmith@me.com; marc@amssoundandvision.com; gsrichter@aol.com; jessicaj udd @crsm ith I Ic.com Subject: Kalea Bay project To the Collier County Commissioners, I am and have been a Naples resident since 1990. I have seen Naples grow from the small town to a larger town with that small town atmosphere. It is where I enjoy to live and therefore where I set up my family and my business. It pains me to hear that there is opposition to projects, specifically the Kalea Bay project. I understand what it is like to have construction go on next door and although it is a little annoying, it will pass and Naples is better for it. It is promising to our community when homes are built. It creates confidence in community, business, and family life! What better way to increase the value and the operation of our county than welcoming those who are willing to invest in its future! I am an owner of a small company that is involved with the Kalea Bay project. We are a small fish in the pond of contractors working on this project. I cannot speak for them, but we have added staff to our company, invested in advertising, business expansion, and showroom enhancements to provide for the potential 600+families that will call Kalea Bay and Naples, Fl their home. I can only make the assumption that the other companies have made similar investments. It takes a lot of people to build a community and even more to staff the location when it is complete. I would ask that you do not make any changes to these employees source of income or provide more stress for companies in the workforce by delaying the project. Our company and our employees families will be directly affected by the decisions you make. I appreciate your time. If you feel the need to reach out to me about my thoughts on this project,feel free to do so. Best Regards, Scott Moore AMS Sound &Vision Owner Rise and rise again and agan anti!lanbs become lions' lefini Scott H. Moore Senor Systems Dew -AMS Sand&Maw Massa 4.95,crt www.snssoundardvision.cam Helping to transform lives by reducing your waistli BrownleeMichael From: Linda Crowe [linda.crowe@progressivewaste.com] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:55 PM To: "BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt Subject: Kalea Bay Tower#2 Importance: High To Collier County Commissioners, I am very disappointed there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay.As an informed resident of Southwest Florida and who is heavily involved in the construction and real estate industry, it's unfortunate to hear of opposition to growth within our community. Not only am a licensed Real Estate Agent, I also am fortunate enough to be employed by Waste Connections, who provides hauling and disposal services on construction sites. Kalea Bay Building#1 has not only provided a significant employment opportunity for construction workers who work and live within our community; but has also benefited Southwest Florida by attracting affluent residents who have purchased condominiums in Tower 1. The benefits this project brings within our community reaches far beyond today. It supports our community for many years down the road by the jobs it creates to operate Kalea Bay and the opportunity it brings for outlying existing businesses as well as future business opportunities.The increase in tax revenue for Collier County should also be an important topic not be overlooked. We want to look for future growth and opportunity in Southwest Florida and opposing the second phase of Kalea Bay does not support our local industry of construction,tourism/snowbirds, and real estate markets. Hundreds of companies and probably an estimated thousand workers would be directly affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project.The real estate and construction market has went through some very tough times and to stop the second phase of Kalea Bay would be going backwards. It is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy considering what we have been through. I hope that we can continue to grow as a community and every one of whose who work and live within this community can prosper and enjoy the life Southwest Florida has to offer.Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Linda Crowe I Territory Manager Waste Connections, Inc. 2289 Bruner Lane, Fort Myers, FL 33912 0:239-489-1716 I F:239-489-1652 I C:239-229-5473 r '%si1. (:`A)N\I(„€ O , I* ;. 1 BrownleeMichael From: Arturo Guido [aguido@legnobastone.com] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2017 10:53 AM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay "To the Collier County Commissioners, "To the Collier County Commissioners, It has recently been brought to our attention that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned local Naples, Florida businessman who owns and operates a five-generation small business headquartered in Naples, Florida. We are extremely involved in the construction industry as we are a small sub-contractor that works directly for C.R. Smith. We are a boutiques manufacturing company with approximately 50 employees directly linked to the Kalea Bay project.A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate.The Kalea Bay project is a significant element to our business and crucial to the employees that are directly employed because of the Kalea Bay project. No to mention the monetary impact it will also have on all their families. Our company and our employees will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. It would be shameful to post pone the progress of this already approved project and negatively impact tens of thousands of families for the sake of a few.Thank you for your time!" Please consider the environment when printing this email.As a company deeply invested in wood,we appreciate your efforts to maintain a world with healthy forests and prudent environmental stewardship.Thank you! Legno Bastone Wide Plank Flooring "Custom Designed Furniture for Your Floor" 2684 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 (0)239-206-1898 (g) ',Repro ostone WIDE PLANK FLOORING Disclaimer Notice The E-Mail and the information contained in it and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged.If you received this email in error please notify us immediately.You are not authorized to,and must not disclose,copy,distribute or retain this E-Mail or any part of it.We have taken precautions to lower the risk of transmitting software viruses,but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on this message and any attachment to it.Neither Legno Bastone nor the sender can accept liability or responsibility for any damage or any loss whatsoever caused by the transmission of any virus. All statements are made WITHOUT PREJUDICE and all offers are made SUBJECT TO CONTRACT within 45 days of quote. 1 BrownleeMichael From: Brian Dollard [briandollardrce@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2017 1:13 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Project To the Collier County Commissioners, It has been brought to my attention there is opposition to the development of the Kalea Bay Project by a few surrounding neighbors. Let me start by saying I am a 41 year Resident of Naples, I have been in the construction business for 38 years. I have seen all the changes from Ft. Myers to Marco Island.The construction industry here is 2"d to none for quality of job and the tradesman that build them. We are a vital part of our communities. From purchasing our own properties and creating commerce with other businesses and industries.Also by creating a better tax base for our State and local Government. I currently employ roughly 50 tradesman for our company. Local men and women who have families to provide and support.The Kalea bay Project is vital to my family and my employees families to live a quality life here in Southwest Florida. In this situation with the opposition opinion, it's a shame that a few who have their dwelling in the this location are opposed to those who would like a dwelling in the same location. ( this makes no sense).The Kalea Bay project is the most beautiful thought out resort style community that I have been involved with and the privilege to work on.The construction Industry has been in some tough times as of late,just the past year or so we have been coming out of a serious slow down due to the financial crisis. All the people involved are starting to live a better life and contribute to the community in a more vigor way. If this project was delayed or stopped because of the few who only have their own interest in mind and not the greater good of the community it would be another hardship on the construction industry and the people involved. My company and its employees would certainly feel hardship in their lives.Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Best regards to all of you. Brian Brian Dollard briandollardree@gmail.com RCE Contractors, Inc 3884 Progress Ave Naples, FL 34104 239-643-5758-Office 239-825-1532-Cell 239-643-6772-Fax CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This e-mail is only for the person(s) named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail. BrownleeMichael From: Bret Groos [Bret.Groos@communityelectricfl.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 10:02 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Good morning, I am reaching out to you all today to express my support for the Kalea Bay project, much like the hundreds of people that have purchased units in the first two buildings we are all very proud of this community. We have been operating in collier county for 45 years and are a strong supporter of this place we call home.We understand that from time to time there is opposition to growth, it's funny how most of it is from people who have moved here and know think no one else should. I am sure you all deal with this very often.That being said,the stalling of this project is starting to have a financial impact on many of the local subcontractors,vendors and suppliers that are involved in the project, all of these businesses supply thousands of jobs in Collier County and have made commitments to the project team to reserve man power and re-sources for the project, so from the owners to the workers there is concern of the starting date of phase 2. Thank you for your attention, hopefully this can be rectified soon. lmauMIT,Y ELECTRIC .OFL(OLLIER, INC. ritgarer44480, Bret Russell Groos President Office: 239-262-3438 Fax: 239-262-6943 Mobile: 239-253-0807 Bret.Groos@communityelectricfl.com 1 BrownleeMichael From: Inga Lodge [inga©kaleabay.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 3:15 PM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.neT; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: Kalea Bay To Collier County Commissioners: It is with great disappointment that I have heard there is to be a hearing on the future status of Kalea Bay. I am currently the Broker at the sales office at Kalea. We have had to deal with the harassment of many names on this list. They enter the sales office and complain we have illegally started building,they loudly complain we don't have permits etc. They do this in front of customers. Diane Rupnow even started a web page that we had our legal department shut down. Out of the 120 condo's in Tower 100, 60% are new buyers to Naples. They have the same dream as everyone else that would like to make Naples home. They have had plenty of opportunities to purchase in other existing high rises and chose to wait for Kalea Bay. There is nothing that says financial stability in Collier County then starting a high rise community. The last high-rise to be completed was Moraya Bay in 2009. Our new buyers are majority cash buyers paying an average of$1,800,000 to live at Kalea. Naples is poised to have a 4.9% increase in Economic Growth in the next year. How does that happen if a few people can dictate what can and can't be built? It seems that the citizens have more power than the Collier County Commissioners. The Commissioners that we vote for. 80% of our new residents at Kalea Bay are not homestead,that means these new homeowners will pay the highest property tax. That will be over $2,160,000 in property tax paid a year just on Tower 100! Of the list of 93 names presented for the appeal are you aware that 29% of the people on the list are not full- time residents? They can not vote for the County Commissioners, but they are allowed to dictate whether 300 full-time residents continue to work in North Naples. We are not just building the Kalea Bay community, we are building FOR THE COMMUNITY, for those people that work and live in North Naples. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Warm Regards, INGAW.LODGE BROKER/VPSALES & MARKETING 13910 Old Coast Rd Naples,FL.34110 (o)239.793.0110(c)239.560.1171 Wilson&Associates Exclusive listing agent KALEA -ey 001 BrownleeMichael From: Josh Willard [Josh.Willard@manhattanconstruction.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 7:25 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Attachments: 2017.07.05_Kalea Bay_CCBC Letter.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Good morning. Please see the attached letter regarding the Kalea Bay project. I greatly appreciate your attention to this matter. Thank you, Manhattan Building excellence. Josh Willard Senior Project Manager Manhattan Construction (Florida), Inc. 3705-1 Westview Dr, Naples, FL 34104 239.643.6000 phone 1239.643.6030 fax 1239.895.5671 cell josh.willard@manhattanconstruction.com www.manhattanconstruction.com The only thing better than recognizing a quality product is building one. 1 BrownleeMichael From: Inga Lodge [inga@kaleabay.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 3:15 PM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.neT; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: Kalea Bay To Collier County Commissioners: It is with great disappointment that I have heard there is to be a hearing on the future status of Kalea Bay. I am currently the Broker at the sales office at Kalea. We have had to deal with the harassment of many names on this list. They enter the sales office and complain we have illegally started building, they loudly complain we don't have permits etc. They do this in front of customers. Diane Rupnow even started a web page that we had our legal department shut down. Out of the 120 condo's in Tower 100, 60% are new buyers to Naples. They have the same dream as everyone else that would like to make Naples home. They have had plenty of opportunities to purchase in other existing high rises and chose to wait for Kalea Bay. There is nothing that says financial stability in Collier County then starting a high rise community. The last high-rise to be completed was Moraya Bay in 2009. Our new buyers are majority cash buyers paying an average of$1,800,000 to live at Kalea. Naples is poised to have a 4.9% increase in Economic Growth in the next year. How does that happen if a few people can dictate what can and can't be built? It seems that the citizens have more power than the Collier County Commissioners. The Commissioners that we vote for. 80% of our new residents at Kalea Bay are not homestead, that means these new homeowners will pay the highest property tax. That will be over$2,160,000 in property tax paid a year just on Tower 100! Of the list of 93 names presented for the appeal are you aware that 29% of the people on the list are not full- time residents? They can not vote for the County Commissioners, but they are allowed to dictate whether 300 full-time residents continue to work in North Naples. We are not just building the Kalea Bay community,we are building FOR THE COMMUNITY, for those people that work and live in North Naples. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Warm Regards, INGAW.LODGE BROKER/VPSALES & MARKETING 13910 Old Coast Rd Naples,FL.34110 (o)239.793.0110(c)239.560.1171 Wilson&Associates Exclusive listing agent KALEA Vim. 1 BrownleeMichael From: Nancy Farnsworth [nancy@acresplumbing.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:38 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Attachments: 20170710151854.pdf Categories: PRINTED Dear Commissioners: Please find attached signatures from 22 of our staff who work construction in Collier County and many who live in the county. Several have worked directly on the Kalea Bay project and are scheduled to work on the upcoming building 2. If the Kalea Bay Project is halted or delayed due to the protesters against this already approved building, we will have to lay people off. Please stand strong against those few part time residents who are against this project. ,lV anal Nancy P.Farnsworth Vice President Acres&Son Plumbing, Inc. Serca Management, LLC 239-597-5031 239-597-3740 fax 1 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala a(�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�colliergov.net PennyTaylor(c�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(cr�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincer y, cr-a-1/1-14" Signature Print Name 77 1-161/Le Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndvSolis(c�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�colliergov.net PennyTavlor(a)colliergov.net BillMcDaniel( colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincere Signature VV\ LL Print Name 370o.2, Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(c�colliergov,net PennvTaylorc colliergov.net BillMcDanielAcolliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature Print Name .778/ et6 4‘1E- .%( Address / A)t y, tits ��J rz r1 4 3 44/'7 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(�colliergov.net PennyTaylor(2colliergov.net BillMcDaniel aC�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, thO Signat e Print Name W36 figt)66P Lel) Address (' O/Ur1 PL Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylorCa�colliergov.net BillMcDanielP,colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature l ;Fne/c4c /<-0 ld'' ey21 afri Print Name ( 76l </Sit $1vc e fi Address /1u`?/-°.S Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala a(�colliergov.net AndySoliscolliergov.net BurtSaundersQcolliergov,net PennvTaylor a(�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel a(�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Ram Signature Print Name Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndvSolisnacolliergov.net BurtSaunders( colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, l7&5 /- (//e5° Signature /liana /7k/e5 Print Name Src 02-7 Si St,/ Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala a(�colliergov.net AndySolisCc�colliergov.net BurtSaundersCa�colliergov.net PennyTaylor(�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(c�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against he opposition who are do not want this project built. in 10P,ly, St AAAAA litan'Alit Ad Signage VA--0 fket-S CFA Print Name 2& 8"/ gc.Lj \ \ 7\\c Address Pg0j,•1 i' c' riff ' I Sid Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialac colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennvTaylor( colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@cblliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signat e ICta -L-05 Print Name tgo4-1 411..e. ��1Q ci Address fe( .ti" Aef e S e i `33834 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialagcolliergov.net AndySolisacolliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�colliergov.net PennyTayloracolliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature Pt a_/ Print Name Seo t r-1-41 S� 5 Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders a colliergov.net PennyTaylorCa?colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sin = -ly, (),,e,„(5r Sign-' re Print Name Lf i i A. w- AV E Address LaLf—s ) . Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaundersa,colliergov.net ;; jai.. PennyTavlorcolliergov,net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. S i n cerejy. •K.__ Signature Print Name 30 -X A ( 577 Address A. , c �.► ►,, .4 s /:' • Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 Don naFiala(c�colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTavlor(a�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sin 412111, li•nature �!ice-/ /o Print Name /o 30 / ),\k(ASk �y Address )O S r, Inc FL 313S Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis(acolliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�colliergov.net PennyTaylorna colliergov.net BillMcDanielcolliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, _ . Signature CD—Se- Q r A. c Print Name /0 eN c . 1 r- Address I1/ p/.e s 4L . `lq03 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis aC�colliergov.net BurtSaunders( colliergov.net Pen nyTavlorCc�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, &(\? ‘„ko 4 tyi , i ' Sit - P _.. 11fj . . m 2.itT (2-i &J ifI?ess Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(cr7colliergov.net AndySolis(a colliergov.net BurtSaunders©colliergov.net PennvTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDanielC�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Since = . A • ure I g ! �L01sar11 Prin lame 13 07.6 411 4'16 Clr/ Addres 4/4 r ke-C r( 34- f/i Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialac colliergov.net AndySolisAcolliergov.net BurtSaundersAcolliergov.net PennyTaylorAcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel@collierciov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Si cerely, i nr e '116'1e--f r(1106;1/4 )Nfl e)R. F- Print Name b 40' 'e-11) FAq A ' Lew fq___. 3 1 1 i Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaundersCcr)colliergov.net PennyTaylor aC7colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net 1 RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected i the already •-rmitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be bui . Please stand fir, against the opposition who are do not want this project built. J j.e� ely, (--) & li ,l •!k ' /;! / ' s•nature r 4. . �, � J print Name A►dres.' ( , IM111 (ilk,. yIJZ Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala a(�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunderscolliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(c�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, / / c ✓L/ 0i4 I! / AI ✓.. Signature �m, A �-' � p /1-2,4 Print Name /1113 P W/415 Le S Lot/ ‘//7-.2 Z Address /✓9P� es FifiD y-/v3 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a colliergov.net AndySolis(c�colliergov.net BurtSaundersncolliergov.net PennyTaylorgcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel(c�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built, Sinc ely, `641r- cii/zIvri--- Signature Pedro M014 Ivo Print Name (bk o � CX(, y 1--k0 k k otJ L A Address C 3 i� /�c "l fp 1( 1YN) -(-- Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala a(�colliergov.net AndySolis(a colliergov.net BurtSaunderscolliergov.net PennyTaylorcolliergov,net BillMcDaniel( colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. 1 1IlvSincerely,, ; I Sig r.re V ----------t Ai=NQ i 0 -0 f-\6?-40e04)t- Print Name ��/ 4 7,g `-1 L. 5 tt) A dr s Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala ancolliergov.net AndySolis(a colliergov.net BurtSaunders(c�colliergov.net PennyTayloracolliergov.net BilIMcDaniel(a�col liergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature <- Q ave Print Name 2:7 e-6, r Address ?if)," CONCRETE & MASONRY, INC. July 11, 2017 Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 Re: Kalea Bay Tower Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: This letter comes to you from a concerned contractor that has operated in Naples for over thirty years. It was with great excitement that we prepared for the Kalea Bay project post a recession during which many construction contractors, including Allen Concrete, had to lay off thousands of employees. When we were awarded the concrete portion of the Kalea Bay project, we hired an able workforce to undertake it. We anticipated that the project duration would be approximately seven years. The project consists of five towers, clubhouse facilities, guest cottages, maintenance building, tennis courts and golf course. We are under notice that there is opposition to the completion of the remaining towers. When construction of tower#2 was delayed, we had to lay off several employees and reduce the hours of several others. We have tried to hold-on, but if this project does not move forward or is delayed any more, we will be forced to lay-off more employees and/or cut more hours. These employees are the same ones that fuel our local economy with their spending. Projects such as Kalea Bay attract both seasonal and permanent residents who also contract miscellaneous local trades i.e. air conditioning contractors, painters, Allen Page 1 of 2 6301 SHIRLEY STREET • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 • OFFICE(239)566-1661 •FAX(239) 566-8515 designers, and who patron local restaurants, hair and nail salons,car dealerships and so on. Since Naples is such a cyclical area,it needs sufficient attractive housing to compete with other cities. We have beautiful communities, but not many as grand as Kalea Bay. We hope you take into consideration all of these things and not simply the complaints of a few unit owners as you make your decision. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, -5 Chris Allen Cc: Bill McDaniel Penny Taylor Burt Saunders Donna Fiala Andy Solis Allen Page 2 of 2 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Board of Zoning Appeals \18.A. (1:30 Time Certain) This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Judith S. Palay and 92 other property owners within the Cocohatchee Bay Neighborhood Communities, filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the administrative approval of building separations, building widths, building dwelling units, and building heights in the Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA-PL20160002242 for Kalea Bay aka Kinsale Condominium Phases Il-VI. The subject property is located at the northwest and northeast corners of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South and Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170002165] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ❑ SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®E-mail ®Calls Meeting w/ Diane Rupnow & Judy Palay, Phone Call w/ Frank Halas, Correspondence from the Law Firms, Discussions w/ Planning Commissioners, County Attorney Memorandum Advertised Public Hearings �� ***This item has been continued from the June 27, 2017 BCC meeting.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended,the Wolf Creek RPUD, to approve an insubstantial change to the PUD, to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only, and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 189± acres. [PDI-PL20160000404] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM IX SEE FILE ❑Meetings ®Correspondence SE-mail ®Calls Received correspondence from Attorney Steven Bracci representing the Black Bear Ridge HOA and Emails and phone call w/ Bruce Anderson. Other than that, no additional communications since Ex Parte was disclosed at the last meeting. } STEVEN J.BRACCI, PA A Professional Association Attorney at Law 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102 Naples,Florida 34109 Ph: (239)596-2635 Fax: (239)431-6045 steve@braccilaw.com www.braccilaw.com July 5, 2017 VIA E-MAIL jeffklatzkow(a,,colliergov.net Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Collier County Attorney's Office 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples,Florida 34112 Re: Vanderbilt Reserve Wolf Creek PUD Insubstantial Change Request Vanderbilt Reserve-SDP Application for 215 unit subdivision per Permit Tracking#PL20160000157 Dear Jeff: On behalf of the Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members, the purpose of this letter is to suggest that Vanderbilt Reserve is improperly seeking a piecemeal"insubstantial change" to the Wolf Creek PUD as part of its overall effort to obtain an SDP for a 215 unit residential subdivision. The SDP application documents are referenced at Permit Tracking #PL20160000157. In order for Vanderbilt Reserve to obtain that SDP,it requires not only a reduction of its preserve area,but also an increase in its residential density. The increase in density requires a"substantial" change to the Wolf Creek PUD pursuant to LDC Sect. 10.02.13.E.1.b,.rather than the currently requested insubstantial change. For whatever reason, both staff and the owner/developer are ignoring the fact that the presently requested 215 units far exceeds the density allocated to the Vanderbilt Reserve property pursuant to the PUD. Not only do Vanderbilt Reserve's proposed 215 units exceed its overall allocated density,but the 115 dwelling units(plus 4 partial units)shown on what is known as the"Mederos"property far exceeds the 80 units that were allocated to the Mederos Parcel pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 2007-46. At last week's hearing on Vanderbilt Reserve's insubstantial change application to amend the Wolf Creek PUD to reduce the preserve area,you correctly advised the Board that the Wolf Creek PUD was "balkanized"back in 2007. In other words, rather than looking at the PUD's density as a whole,certain parcels were treated by the BCC as sub-parcels and allocated specific unit densities. This includes what is known as the"Mederos"property which, under Ordinance 2007-46, was assigned 80 development units. This same "Mederos"parcel is where the bulk of preserve is situated which the Developer/owner is seeking a reduction. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Page 2 Mr. Yovanovich spoke at the June 27 PUD amendment hearing and gave his recollection of residential density for the Mederos property given his past involvement in that matter back in 2007. Mr. Yovanovich stated: "What I do know is that right now, the way the PUD is written, there is a limitation of density on what was known as the Mederos parcel of 80 units. So as long as they don't build more than 80 units pursuant to this change in area that they're making available to themselves, we don't have a dispute. If they want to put more than 80 units on that,we do think it's inconsistent with the PUD...." The fact is, Vanderbilt Reserve does want to put more than 80 units on the Mederos property, as evidenced by its pending SDP application showing 115 units (plus 4 partial units) on that parcel. Given your statement to the Board acknowledging "balkanized" density within the Wolf Creek PUD, and Mr. Yovanovich's accurate acknowledgment that there is an 80 unit density maximum on the Mederos property, it would seem that the presently pending insubstantial change application to the Wolf Creek PUD is procedurally improper. We believe that the owner's PUD application should have been for a "substantial" change to the PUD under LDC Sect. 10.02.13.E.1.b. This would then properly allow the Board of County Commissioners to review this matter in its entirety, rather than reviewing it piecemeal and thus denying the Commissioners an opportunity to see the complete picture that the preserve is being reduced to accommodate a density increase. It is apparent that staff has not provided the Commissioners with any information regarding the pending 215-unit Vanderbilt Preserve SDP application. This approach does not best serve Collier County and its citizens. Looking beyond just the four corners of the "Mederos" property, the remainder of Vanderbilt Reserve is situated on what is known as "Parcel 3b,"which by our calculations has a maximum density of 24 dwelling units (or in any event, not more than 48 dwelling units based on 4 units per acre) , capping the total allowed units within Vanderbilt Reserve at 104 units (or in any event, not more than 128 units). This is far less than the 215 units requested by Vanderbilt Reserve under its presently pending SDP application. For an understanding of the history of density on both "Parcel 3b," as well as the "Mederos" property, see the timeline and supporting documents attached hereto. We believe that the failure to properly address the need for increased density as part of the PUD amendment resulted in the concern and confusion justifiably expressed by certain board members at the June 27 meeting. This concern and confusion will likely continue until such time as the developer/owner's PUD amendment application properly addresses both the preserve reduction and the density issue. It would seem that at the July 11 meeting,the interests of the Board and the public would be best served by tabling the PUD insubstantial change request until such time as the developer/owner follows the proper PUD substantial change amendment process. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Page 3 Please feel free to contact me if you wish to further discuss this matter. Sincerely, STEVEN J.BRACCI,PA Steven J. Bracci, Esq. cc: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Bruce Anderson, Esq. Client ti 4 :_. -:11.4.'4 r._aR_ �� - _t __._. —y-uw+ruac�.aaaor m .saarrsr�rr. — r.... 1.1.1.1. ,,.1 Tig61i6jCililaa 1 I I 1 L m , .ted atW „.......!:....w.:,,,,,. x �: yam. .' w« , .w 121i 64ith .fir _- ti .,. ; 3 1 i ' ' 16 • "a ' L -! '^p... ,.. -r--.. . 4` `+nom. 'V _�' �_ 1r 4===.33,,,. ---=: ;1: ii a1 o a _ INA LI � ;4: z I J- - :el i l: x _ _ ,......_— _ .5., :1- -ra7. itii., ,. „...-:i= ' - .,,- wIi a. i _" _ E 1_ , t 11 i BI! H till =°1-1-04 PHASE II �..3 '�" ,. _. Lr^. WW i ,"°e.C.i � � i 14 . PHASEI i ' ' s tyo 1,, _ : 6 1 o 6 1 U. lig RI �e! s ' ' i § 1_ •.',141 ii • rtr .. - -z .. �o.• � 1 � io r..w � sum- Ir- I� r Uri i ri` Y { II 1 —41141W Os. --. . €(1 y� fli�}i MOM, �,�1IPAPPPEMPPE i I t i . .�. . .6-0106 `-w.v & ,rr temummer , e w""1"` -omx - - i � Ei , 4 r•. « - SHUT . a.7 �6 _,. ym , ^. . a/ �..� bsxew ----...1---:,======.----.7.==., ys"41"41""1.04110441.4 OW WI i 1.1.-.W..°. I -_ I. ' »........ ----.w..... e Mederos parcel#9 highlighted above shows 115 complete dwelling units Exhibit No.2.0 and 4 partial dwelling units Application No. 161123-9 Parcel 38 located above Parcel 9 shows 96 complete dwelling units and 4 Page 3 of 7 partial units BrownleeMichael From: Steve Bracci [steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff Cc: SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; rbanderson@napleslaw.com Subject: Wolf Creek PUD /Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: 2017.07.05 Letter to Jeff Klatzkow(Wolf Creek PUD -Vanderbilt Reserve).pdf; Exhibit No. 2.0 Application No. 161123-9 Page 3 of 7.pdf; Vanderbilt Reserve Summary June 2017.pdf; Summary Documents July 2017 2nd.pdf Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci } , Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 1 BrownleeMichael From: R. Bruce Anderson [rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 1:00 PM To: SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Steve Bracci; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Categories: ATTENTION, PRINTED Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFYPASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAIC 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct 1 (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson@napleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us (collect) at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination,forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill ; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna ; R. Bruce Anderson Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 2 BrownleeMichael From: Steve Bracci [steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 2:38 PM To: R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Board—this is in response to Mr. Anderson's email below. I believe you should ask Mr. Anderson to clarify what he means when he states: "The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong." The impression left by Mr. Anderson is that the prior 254 site plan was approved by the county, and that the new presently pending 215 unit site plan now reduces the approved site plan. Mr.Anderson should clarify whether the county ever approved a 254 site plan, or whether he is instead just referencing a concept plan on a sheet of paper that was never approved. Sincerely, Steve Bracci let NAt111 Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045;email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill ; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna ; KlatzkowJeff; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc: Steve Bracci ; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) 1 Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved. The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering. The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFYPASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTORKE.IS AT LAT 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson@napleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us (collect) at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, 2 dissemination,forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From:Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent:Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net;pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci `1! s, \4 ; ,M - Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 3 ..�. Exhibit r$" 3': // � �t 411.1 Jeri. • r 1.PARTIES AND PROPERTY; 5 roc �4leoRmewt- c. rfotic4e- Ikomtrcv ltcottiT'` 0:4118.-y (`Buyer") 2• agrees to buy and suckatoa. '.tate., LIC, a frloride limited liability company ("Setter") 3• agrees to set the property described es:Street Address: sae attached legal descriptio' 1' e• Legal Description: Us. attacbea Legal neacriptioe c Intangible 7' and the following Pemenel Property:Ise Addi near` c (all collectively referred to as the"Property")on the terms and conditions set forlh below. is 2.PURCHASE PRICE: $ 31575, 00• r Como , coaxer r. Durant $ 3.1 `�0 i// (a)Deposit held in escrow by s' 2 ("Escrow Agent") klatla apt tuhpor to act/slaw lint;eorcoo,1 (1U1 td)in Z business days of Effective Date) i3- Escrow Agent's address: 2110 vasdsrbilt attack Road Phone: 239.449,5200 14- (btAceltionereepostele-be'made1Q£miaow-Agent'wfthin—=eleryetifterEffectiee-Bete $ n/a 15' (e)-Add«ties;akdePeeiFte-baiit; ;a rew:ltgeet•witoia __-ciayeetter.Eftectiva.Date $ min 16' (d;�Tow fin,who 4pe'Pergat c $ n/a (e)Other n/n is (f)Ail deposits will be cradled to the purchase price at closing.Balance to close,subject 0• do 10• to adjustments and prorations.to be paid with locally drawn cashier's or official bank $ 3 i? -r iu check(s)or wire transfer. 21 3.TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE;EFFECTIVE DATE;COMPUTATION OF TIME: Unless this offer is signed by Seller and Buyer ar and an executed copy delvered to al parties on a before ao day. ,this atter will be withdrawn and the 23 Buyer's deposit,If any,will be returned.The time for acceptance of any counter offer will be 3 days from the date thy counter 24 Otter is delivered.The"Effective Date'of this Contract Is the date on which the last one.of the Seller and BuyeT has signed and as or initialed and delivered this offer or the final counter offer.Calendar days wit be used when computing time periods,except ben; as time periods of 5 days or less.Time periods of 5 days a less will be computed without Inducting Saturday,Sunday.or national feel lk n legal holidays.Any time period ending on a Saturday,Sunday,Or national legal holiday will extend until 5:00 p.m.of the next e� 1111 26 business day.Time is of the essence In this Contract. as 4.CLOSING DATE AND LOCATION: within 30 days after the expiration of the Due 3a (a)Closing Date: This transaction will be dosed sire,p .period (Closing Date),unless specifically st extended by other provisions of this Contract.The Closing Date will prevail over all other time periods including,but not limited 32 to.Financing and Due Diligence periods.In the event Insurance underwriting Is suspended on Closing Date and Buyer is unable 33 to obtain property insurance,Buyer may postpone closing up to 5 days after the insurance underwriting suspension Is lifted. s (b)Location:Closing will take place In censor County,Florida,(It left blank, u closing wil take place In the county where the Property Is located.)Closing may be conducted by mall a electronic means. x'Buyer( i( lend Seller( )L acknoiMedge naceipt of a copy of this page,which is Page 1 of 7 Pages. ,r�1 GC-3 Rev,10109 0 2009 Florida Association of FFICOr9' Al NMflwed a � � Thio aottrare is lieaatad to v.3Utley,. Conroy - Talon Konagonant a Utley, GLC] orw.trtndaettaadaok.aaa. 37 5.THIRD PARTY FiNIANCING: N/A r• ER'S OB •TIQN: Within days(5 days If .c blanc)atter Effective Date = er wit apply • third party fine • in an 3r t not •exceed %oft : • chase price• with a fixed int rate not to ex. % • per year• • an Initial variable 1 - t rate not to .. •::• %,with points• commitment • •an fees not to:• •::► % 41•of the• amount,for a te• of : d amortized over - ,with adri&.. terms as follows: 42• u B er we timely provide - and alt credit, ployme►t,financial and a : information - ••nably required by•• lender.B r u it use good faith tan• ::strode diig:..:to(Iobtain Loan • da = 45 days if left blen • Effective r'te 45 (Loan Approval Da• ,f)satisfy term: : • conditions of the Loan • •• • :I.and(110 clo-:the loan.Buyer w keep Seller: . 46 Broker fully irf. . :. about loan :.r :tion status and aut • • : : mortgage tx• - and lender to d,••':all such inf. :tion 47 to Seller and' • : .Buyer wi •tify Seller'immediately .••• obtaining - • being rejected by- lender. ae CANC • • :If Buyer, :••: using good faith and ree-••:• : diligence,falls •obtain Loan Appr. .I by Loan Ap• • : Date, 4r Buyer •- within - •(3 days if left blank)del tten notice to- staling Buyer :•,•: waives this fi ng 50 con •ency or canoe- s Contract If Buyer does - + er,then Seller ma ..: al this Con - • delivering w notice si to -�.�'(.� -, �a.�t any ti - •cotter.Unless this Orland .• contingency has•.- waived,this Corer• shed remain au• to the 52 ••tisfacdon,by • ng,of those Conditions of Lo . Approval related to a Property. DEPOSiT($) • purposes of Paragraph 5 •• :h Buyer has used •••faith and re::.•':• -diligence but.•:=not obtain •: s4 Approve(• .: Approval Dale and , either party elects ,• .: - this Con = sat forth above• the lender fa :or ss refuses .•close on or before the Closing •: :without fault on - • • s pert,the Dep.: -)shall be re :• o Buyer,whe-:upon 56 both ►. '::MI be released from all f • : obligations under • Contract,except • oblgations stated :rein as su ' ' •the sr t:.. . : . of this Contract.If -.• •_ elects to tennina- 1 is Contract as •rth above or Buyer : - to user••• faith or ss r.•:-. :•e diligence as set forth:.• :,Beller will be • :•to retain the• .s)if the transection oes not dose. 5r 6,TM.E: Seller has the legal capacity to and will convey marketable title to the Property by IR statutory warranty deed sr O other ,free of liens,easements and encumbrances of record or known to Seller. 51 but subject to property taxes for the year of closing;covenants,restrictions and public utility easements of record;existing zoning er and governmental regulations;and(list any other matters to which title will be subject) s' sr . es provided there exists at closing no violation of the foregoing and none of them prevents Buyer's intended use of the Property as sa• 5r (a)Evidence of Title:The party who pays the premium for the title insurance policy will select the dosing agent and pay for i-. ee• the tine search and closing services.Seller wit,at(check one) 51 Sellers 0 Buyer's expense and within 7 days 0 alter tf sr Effective Date Q or at least days before Closing Dale deliver to Buyer(check one) m 410.)a title insurance commitment by a Florida licensed title insurer and,upon Buyer recording the deed,an owner's policy n In the amount of the purchase price for fee simple title eubject only to exceptions stated above.if Buyer is payeig for the ra evidence of title and Seller has an owner's policy,Seller will deliver a copy to Buyer within 15 days after Effective Date. 7r O(ii)an abstract of title,prepared or brought current by an existing abstract firm or certified as correct by an existing firm. ri However,if such an abstract is not available to Seller,then a prior owner's title poky acceptable to the proposed insurer as 75 a base ler reissuance of coverage may be used.The prior policy we Include copies of at policy exceptions end an update 76 in a format acceptable to Buyer from the policy effective date and certified to Buyer or Buyer's closing agent together with 77 copies of all documents recited in the prior poky and in the update.If such an abstract or prior policy Is not available to 7s Seller then(.)above will be the evidence of title. r9 (b)Title Examination:Buyer we.within 15 days from receipt of the evidence of title deliver written notice to Seiler or title es defects.Tele wit be deemed acceptable to Buyer If(1)Buyer fats to deliver proper notice of defects or(2)Buyer delivers proper e1- written notice and Seller cures the defects within is days from receipt of the notice("Curative Period'). If the defects are az cured within the Curative Period,dosing we occur within 10 days from receipt by Buyer of notice of such curing.Seller rney s3 elect not to cure defects if Seller reasonably believes any defect cannot be cured within the Curative Period.If the defects are s• . not cured within the Curative Period,Buyer will have 10 days from receipt of notice of Sellers Inability to cure the detects to es elect whether to terminate this Contract or accept title subject to existing defects aud close the transaction without reduction in es purchase price. er (c)Survey:(check applicable provisions below) ea 4i Seller will,within 'r days from Effective Date,delver to Buyer copies of prior surveys,plans,specifications.and 1./7 ao• engineering documents,if any.and the following documents relevant to this transaction: scr .prepared for Seller or in Seller's 91' Boyer( )( 1 wild Seller( !(. �acknowledge receipt of a copy of this page,which is Page 2 of 7 Pages. GC-3 Rev.10/06 0 2006 Ronna Assockeer of Foams* Ai Rights Reeervsd ilia •oltwt• as llesLlad to [J. Catty - Taloa lismagr.wt s saucy, 41.01 ww.tran■a.tioodaak.sow. se possession,which show all currently existing structures.In the event this transaction does not close,ell documents provided 93 by Seller will be returned to Seller within 10 days from the date this Contract is terminated. sa 6i Buyer wit,at Cl Seller's 6I Buyer's expense and within the time period allowed to clew and examine title evidence, ss obtain a current certified survey of the Property from a registered surveyor.If the survey reveals encroachments on the f- oe• Property or that the improvements encroach on the lands of another, XBuyer will accept the Property with existing sr encroachments Cl such encroachments MI constitute a title defect to be cured within the Curative Period. or (rf)ingress and Egress: Seiler warrants that the Property presently has ingress and egress. 99 7.PROPERTY CONiDfTION: Seller Mil deliver the Property to Buyer at the time agreed In its present"as Is"condition,ordinary ice wear and tear excepted,and will maintain the landscaping and grounds in a comparable condition.Seiler makes no warranties ice other than marketability of title.By accepting the Property'as is,'Buyer waives all claims against Seiler for any defects in the 1a2 Property.(Check(a)or(b)) sae Cr(a)As Is: Buyer has inspected The Property or waives any right to inspect end:••=pts the Property in its as is`condition, for fit(b)Due Diligence Period:Buyer wi,at Buyer's expense and within�i` days from Effective Date("Due Diligence toe Period"),determine whether the Property is suitable,In Buyer's sole and absolute discretion,for Buyer's intended use and ice development of the Property as specified In Paragraph 6.During the Due Diligence Period,Buyer may conduct any tests, toy analyses,surveys and investigations('inspections")which Buyer deems necessary to determine to Buyer's satisfaction the ice Property's engineering,architectural,environmental properties;zoning and zoning restrictions;flood zone designation and we restrictions;subdivision regulations;soil and grade;avalabllty of access to public roads,water,and other utilities;consistency 110 with local,state and regional growth management and comprehensive land use plans;avaiebiaty of permits,government n 1 approvals and scenes;compliance with American with Disabilities Act;absence of asbestos,soil and ground water 112 contamination;and other inspections that Buyer deems appropriate to determine the suitabitty of the Property for Buyer's 113 intended use and development.Buyer will deliver written notice to Beller prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period 114 of Buyer's determination of whether or not the Property is acceptable.Buyer's failure to comply with this notice requirement is wig constitute acceptance of the Property in its present'as le condition.Seller grants to Buyer,its agents.contractors and 118 assigns,the right to enter the Property at any time during the Due Diligence Period for the purpose of conducting Inspections; 117 provided,however,that Buyer,its agents,contractors and assigns enter the Property and conduct Inspections at their own 118 risk.Buyer will indemnify arid hold Seller harmless from losses,damages,costs,claims and expenses of any nature,including sift attorneys'fees at all levels,and from liability to any person,arising from the conduct of any and all inspections or any work 12o authorized by Buyer.Buyer will not engage in any activity that cotta result in a mechanic's lien being flied against the Property 121 without Seller's prior written consent.In the event this transaction does not close,(1)Buyer will repair all damages to the 1z2 Property resulting from the Inspections and return the Properly io the condition it was in prior to conduct of the Inspections,and 123 (2)Buyer Mil,et Buyer's expense,release to Seller all reports end other work generated as a result of the inspections.Should 121 Buyer deliver timely notice that the Property Is not acceptable,Beller agrees that Buyer's deposit we be immediately returned 12s to Buyer and the Contract terminated. 125 (c)Walk-through Inspection:Buyer may,on the day prior to closing or any other lime mutually agreeable to the parties, 127 conduct a Mai'wale-through"inspection of the Properly to determine compliance with this paragraph and to ensure that at 12s Property is on the premises. 129 S.OPERATION OF PROPERTY DURING CONTRACT PERIOD: Seller coil continue to operate the Property and any business ix, conducted on the Property in the manner operated prior to Contract and will take no action that would adversely Impact the 132 Property,tenants,lenders or business,if any.Any changes,such as saatinixecaataipaoreathat matwlally affect the Property or 132-Beyer's;intended use of the Property will be permitted 48 only with Buyer's consent O without Buyer's consent. 5Saller contracting to sell a lot(s) `/ 133 9.CLOSIN(1U PROCEDURE: tae (a.)Possession and Occupancy:Beller wil delver possession and occupancy of the Property to Buyer at dosing.Seller Wil 135 provide keys,remote contras,and arty security/access codes necessary to operate all locks,mailboxes,and security systems. 13e (b)Casts:Buyer we pay buyer's attorneys'fees,taxes and recording fees on notes,mortgages and financing statements and 137 recording fees for the deed.rteler will pay seller's attorneys'fees, and recording fees for documents needed 136 to cure title defects.If Seller is obligated to discharge any encumbrance at or prior to closing and fails to do so,Buyer may use 131 purchase proceeds to satisfy the encumbrances. 1-V� #rmytl taxes oro deed. 11O (c)Documents:Seller wit provide the deed;bis of eels,mechanic's len affidavit;originals of those assignable service and lar maintenance contracts that will be assumed by Buyer atter the Closing Date end letters to each service contractor from Seller 142'Buyer( )( )and Seller( )(._-_�scknovAedge recent Of a OOpir di tufa page,which is Page 3 01 7 Pages. CC-3 Rev.160e A'sag Florida AMooi-ti ,of Ammo* AR faint.Reserved ml. .ofwar. u liosolood to a. Cofasoy - Taloa >tsa.aa>•wt• a.ditr. LKl wn.ts.aa.atload..k,aoa. 143 advising each of them of the sale of the Property and,If applicable,the transfer of its contract,and any assignable warranties or 144 guarantees received or held by Seller from any manufacturer,contractor,subcontractor,or material supplier in connection with ,as the Property;current copies of the condominium documents,if applicable;assignments of leases,updated rent roll;tenant and 14s lender estoppel letters;assignments of permits and licenses;corrective hstruments;and letters notifying tenants of the change ,u In ownersheenantal agent.If any tenant refuses to execute en estoppel letter,Seller wit certify that Information regarding the ,oa tenant's lease is correct.If Seller is a corporation,Stotler wit delver a resoljtlon of its Board of Directors authorizing the sale +1c and delivery of the.deed and certification by the corporate Secretary certifying the restitution and setting forth facts showing the ,eo conveyance conforms to the requirements of local law.Seiler will transfer security deposits to Buyer.Buyer wit provide the ¶51 closing statement,mortgagee and notes,security agreements,and financing statements. 152 (d)Taxes and Proration*:Real estates taxes,personal property taxes on any tangible personal property,bond payments 163 assumed by Buyer,interest,rents,association dues,insurance premiums ac ceptabie to Buyer,and operating expenses will be tan prorated through the day before closing,if the amount of taxes for die current year cannot be ascertained,rates for the previous +55 year seri be used with due allowance being made for improvements and exemptions.Any tax proration based on an estimate hes will,at request of either party, be readjusted upon receipt of current year's tax tell;this provision will survive closing. ,sr (e)Sp • .nt Uens:Cern(: • confirmed,and r: .:. special ass-.: : • lions as•T the Closing•,, a will be p:': lee by or.If a cell.-•,conferred,or ••special. :: • antis payable installments, ' - - will pay el : ents• 1s9 an le on• before the Clod • a•: e,with any i .1. : for any. •• extending' : . • the C•, .Data p leo Buyer wi ::. me all instalim: is that become.. :and payable- • the Closing •: e.Buyer win . •• ..- or ail ,ah ease • of arty kind'which•.. • due and• rig after Closing ate,unless an. provement is ,betantiaty•, • : :•as Ira of Cosi • a.-•:.k an improves is sue - - •.mpleted as of : Closing D.it . has not ree ed in a lien• .re closing, ea Seiler I pay the amount. . - last estimate• the assessment. hoc (I)Foreign Investment In Real Property Tax Act(FIRPTA):If Sellar Is a"foreign person"as defined by FiRPTA,Seller and h se Buyer agree to comply with Section 1445 of the internal Revenue Code.Seller and Buyer will complete,execute,and deliver is as directed any instrument,affidavit,or statement reasonably necessary to comply with the FIRFTA requlrernerits,including ,sr delivery of their respective federal taxpayer identification numbers or Social Security Numbers to the dosing agent.If Buyer tee does not pay sufficient cash at dosing to meet the withholding requirement,Seller we deliver to Buyer at dosing the additlona. hes cash necessary to satisfy the requirement. 170 10.ESCROW AGENT: Seller and Buyer authorize Escrow Agent(Agent)to receive,deposit,and hold funds and other property 171 in escrow and,Subject to collection,disburse them In accordance with the terms of this Contract.The parties agree that Agent rr will not be trade to any person for misdelivery of escrowed Items to Seiler or Buyer,unless the misdelivery is due to Agent's wilful 73 breach of this Contract or gross negligence.If Agent has doubt as to Agent's duties or obligations under this Contract.Agent may, 174 at Agent's option,(a)hold the escrowed Items until the parties mutually agree to its disbursement or until a court of competent ,re jurisdiction or arbitrator determines the rights of the parties or(b)deposit the escrowed items with the clerk of the court having ra jurisdiction over the matter and file an action In interpleader.Upon notifying the parties of such action.Agent wtl be released from in at seedily except ler the duty to account for items previously delivered out of escrow.If Agent is a licensed reel estate broker, 17e Agent we comply with Chapter 475,Florida Statutes.In any suit it which Agent interpleads the escrowed items or is made a party Ira because of acting as Agent hereunder,Agent will recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs Incurred,with these amounts to be iso paid from and out of the escrowed items and charged and awarded as court costs to favor of the prevaing party. 16. 11.CURE PERIOD: Prior to any claim for default being made,a party we have an opportunity to cure any alleged default.If rsz a party falls to comply with any provision of this Contract,the other party we delver written notice to the non-complying party 7 hes•specifying the non-complence.The non-complying party will have s days(6 days if left blank)after delivery of such notice to .64 cure the non-compliance. les 12.RETURN OF DEPOSIT: Unless otherwise specified in the Contract,In the event any condition of this Contact Is not met las and Buyer has timely given any required notice regarding the condition having not been met,Buyer's deposit will be returned in ire accordance with.applicable Florida laws and regulations. tae 13.DEFAULT: iso (a)In the event the sale is not closed due to any default or failure on the pen of Seller other than failure to make the title iniac marketable after diligent effort,Buyer may either(1)receive a refund of Buyer's deposit(s)or(2)seek specific performance.If ,o, Buyer elects a deposit refund,Seller will be liable to Broker for the full amount of the brokerage fee. lea (b)In the event the sale is not closed due to any default or failure on the part of Buyer,Seller may either(1)retain all deposlt(s) 1w paid or agreed to be paid by Buyer as agreed upon Iquidated damages,consideration for the execution of this Contract,and 154'Buyer(ettl)I )and Setter(_„}(_, }acknowledge receipt of a copy of this page,which Is Page 4 of 7 Ptgee. CC-3 Rev.MAW O 2000 Florida Aeeontetbn of Raexea• Al fights Rommel mia maroon it iio.os.e to U . o....y - :at...e441440m004t 4 aa.iay, LLQ7 ..tr.e. itioaissk.e . 1sr in full settlement of any claims,upon which this Contract will terminate or(2)seek specific performance.if Beller retains the las deposit.Seller will pay the Brokers named In Paragraph 20 fifty percent of ell forfeited deposits retained by Seller(to be split 197 equally among the Brokers)up to the fug amount of the brokerage fee. les 14.ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS: In any claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Contract,the prevailing party, Iso which for purposes of this provision wil include Buyer,Seller and Broker,will be awarded reasonable attorneys'fees,costs,and 200.expenses, 201 16.NOTICES: All notices wit be in writing and may be delivered by mail,personal delivery,or electronic means.Parties agree to Zoe send all notices to addresses specified on the signature page(s).Any notice,document,or Item given by or delivered to an attorney no or real estate licensee(Including a transaction broker)representing a party will be as effective as if given by or delivered to that party. lac 18.DISCLOSURES: zea (a)Commerda(Reel Estate Sales Commission Lien Act The Florida Commercial Real Estate Sales Commission Lien Act los provides that when a broker has earned a commission by performing licensed services under a brokerage agreement with you, 207 the broker may claim a lien against your net sales proceeds for the broker's commission.The broker's lien rights under the act Zoe cannot be waived before the commission is earned. 200 (b}Special Assessment Liens Imposed by Public Body:The Property may be subtract to unpaid special assessment lien(s) 21a imposed by a public body. A public body includes a Community Draeiopment District.)Such liens,If any,shall be paid es set 211 forth In Paragraph 9.(e}. 212 (c)Radon Clan Radon Is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that when it has accumulated in a b ulkiing in sufficient quantities, 213 may present health risks to persons who are exposed to It over time.Lavoie of radon that exceed federal and state guidelines 2u have been found in bid/dings In Rohde.Additional Information regarding radon end radon testing may be obtained from your 215 county public health unit. 219 (d)Energy-Efficiency Rating Information:Buyer acknowledges receipt et the information brochure required by Section 217 553.996,Florida Statutes. 219 17.RISK OF LOSS: 215 (a)if,after the Effective Date and before dosing,the Property Ia damaged by fire or other casualty,Seller will bear the risk of no loss and Buyer may cancel this Contract without lability and the deposits}will be returned to Buyer.Alternatively,Buyer will 221 have the option of purchasing the Property at the agreed upon purchase price and Seiler will transfer to Buyer at closing any 222 insurance proceeds,or Seller's claim to any insurance proceeds payable for the Carnage.Seller will cooperate with and assist 223 Buyer in collecting any such proceeds. 224 (b)if,after the Effective Date and before closing,any part of the Property is taken in condemnation or under the right of eminent 225 domain,or proceedings for such taking will be pending or threatened,Buyer may cancel this Contract without liability end the 226 deposit(s)will be returned to Buyer.Antemativey,Buyer will have the option of purchasing what is left of the Property at the 227 roved upon purchase price and Seller wll transfer CO the Buyer et dosing the proceeds of any award,or Sellers claim to any 228 award payable for the taking.Seiler will cooperate with and assist Buyer in colecting any such award. ter ill ASSIGNABILdTY:PERSONS BOUND: This Contract may be assigned to a rebated entity,and otherwise O is not assignable ✓r 23kr 6[is assignable.The terms"Buyer," Seiler and"Broker"may be singular or plural.This Contract is binding upon Buyer,Seller 231 and their heirs,personal representatives,successors end assigns(if assignment la permitted). 252 19.MiSCELLANEOUB: The terms of this Contract constitute the entire agreement between Buyer and Seller.Modifications of 233 this Contract wal not be bincortg unless in writing,signed and delivered by the party to be bound.Signatures.Initials,documents 234 referenced in this Contract,counterparts and written modifications comma ricated eiactronicalty or on paper wif be acceptable 235 for all purposes,including delivery,and will be binding,Handwritten or typewritten terms inserted in or attached to this Contract 230 prevail over preprinted terms.if any provision of this Contract IS or becomes Invalid or unenforceable,at remaining aining provisions will 237 continue to be fully effective.This Contract will be construed under Florida law and will not be recorded in any public records. • 23A'Buyer(Si l( 1 end BOW'U( J ecie'rVedes Maid of a cagy of the pilpa,what is Page 6 01 7 Pages. CC-9 Rev.10/09 0 2009 Portia Aremistlon Cl neuter Al Rants Reserved rata software is llcsaasd to J. Coeroy - riles M..+r.Mnt ■ malty, LLCI www•exesseottonds.R.aas. 28a 20.BROKERS: Neither Seller nor Buyer has used the services of.or for any other reason owes compensation to,a licensed real 2.o estate Broker other than: ,24r (a)Seller's Broker: 242 (COrlpany Nana) (Uoswee) 243" 244 (AddreFr,To1rFarxne.Fax,E-r, 24.5• who C)is a single agent O is a transaction broker 0 has no brokerage relationship end who will be compensated byMSelter 285' CI Buyer 0 both parties pursuant to O a resting agreement O other(specify) 24r i4a' (b) Buyer's Broker j\JOY1G 249 f arroeny Name) (Lienee) 250' 251 Oddreln,T610010110,Fer.E•rte0 2sr who O is a single agent OIs a transaction broker 0 has no brokerage relationship and who will be compensated by 0 Seller's 250• Broker O Seller M Buyer O both parties pursuant to O an MLS offer of compensation 0 other(speclfr) 251' . 255 (collectively referred to as'Broker')in connection with any act relating to the Property,including but not limited to inquiries, 250 introductions,consultations,end negotiations resulting ki this transaction.Seller and Buyer agree to Indemnify and hold Broker 257 harmless from end against losses,damages,eats end expenses of any kind,iriduding reasonable attorneys'fees at all levels, 2se and from liability to any person,arising from(1)compensation clakned which is inconsistent with the representation in this 259 Paragraph,(2)enforcement action to collect a brokerage fee pursuant to Paragraph 10,(3)any duty accepted by Broker at the NO request of Sellar or Buyer.which is beyond the scope of services regulated by Chapter 475,Florkia Statutes,as amended,or(4) 261 recommendations of or services provided and expenses Incurred by any third party whom Broker refers,recommends,or retains 262 for or on behalf of Saler or Buyer, 283 21,OPTIONAL CLAUSES: (Check if any of the following clauses are applicable and are attached as en addendum to this Contract); 264• O Arbitration 0 Setter Warranty O Existing Mortgage 2ss• O Section 1031 Exchange 0 Coastal Construction Control Line O Buyer's Attorney Approval Zee' 0 Property Inspection and Repair O Flood Area Hazard Zone O Seller's Attorney Approval ear 0 Seller Representations • 0 Seller Financing >B Other Bee Ad4aaeua 268 22.ADDITIONAL TERMS: 2a0• 210' 27n• 272' 273' 274- 275' 270' 277' 270• 279 THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT.IF NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD,SEEK THE ADVICE leo OF AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO SIGNING.BROKER ADVISES BUYER AND SELLER TO VERIFY ALL FACTS AND al REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THEM AND TO CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL 282 FOR LEGAL ADVICE(FOR EXAMPLE,INTERPRETING CONTRACTS.DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF LAWS ON 2a3 THE PROPERTY AND TRANSACTION,STATUS OF TTTLQ FOREIGN INVESTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, 264 ETC.)AND FOR TAX,PROPERTY CONDITION,ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER ADVICE BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES 288 THAT BROKER DOES NOT OCCUPY THE PROPERTY AND THAT ALL REPRESENTATIONS(ORAL,WRITTEN OR aas OTHERWISE)BY BROKER ARE BASED ON SELLER REPRESENTATIONS OR PUBLIC RECORDS UNLESS BROKER 267 INDICATES PERSONAL VERIFICATION OF THE REPRESENTATION.BUYER AGREES TO RELY SOLELY ON SELLER. 28e PROFESSIONAL INSPECTORS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES FOR VERIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY CONDITION, 280 SQUARE FOOTAGE AND FACTS THAT MATERIALLY AFFECT PROPERTY VALUE. 290'Buyer ( )end Seller( I{_}ar mowledge receipt of a copy of this page,which Is Pages of 7 Pages. CC-2 Aev.160D9 0 2000 Ronda Aesao6Aon d Rr,K.m s• Al FV 5a R000rwd InalstatTit 291 Each person signing this Contract On behalf of a party that is a business entity represents and warrants to the other party that • 292 such signatory has full power and authority to enter into and perform this Contract in accordance with its terms and each person 2a3 executing this Contract and other documents on behalf of such party has been duly authorized to do so. 2Qy r Date: 1At�u 31 20(O 295 atur Buyerl 0y 5-135-13•1 ole- EYSATiCk, i -�T k- (L C Tax ID No.: 3 LF6 Lf S$ 29r (Tye or Printed Name Of Boyar) 2203•T e: Man 131841 Telephone: 23C( 5�?Z -73(4`1 • 2dr Date: Sao (Signature of Buyer) 301• Tax ID No.: 3a2 (Typed or Printed Name of Buyer) •Title: Telephone: 3a'Buyer's Address for purpose of notice: 35'Facsimile: E-mall: auck*tane tate*3 °'�°R- _CU-7 L Date: Oj . -, 201 307 (Signature of War) } Sae• Q. Grady Minor Tax ID No.: 5(�.1 ' 2-t 7(2,5q- . `' ace (Typed or Potted Name of Sailor) 31v1itle: Co•afan.Qar Telephone: (2: 6:11-- L24:7 o3 24 2. Bnckatoae Rotates, LLC. a Florida United ].iabl.ity �J� n/2`' Date: r t 1 - !/1 "( D 312 (Signature of Seiler) 313• Michael D. 1fOOre Tax ID No.: S 2- } S 2?'3 4 314 (Typed or Printed Name d Seller) T1s Tdb; Co-teanasiez Teiephorse:Z i — 227 ! r -9- 31r Sellers Address for purpose of notice: C f v AL A g57 aft(D Vrv�Jg,'ad f �L h. 02d)� r� r�r ' oo's 3%'/O 31r Facsimile: 2..2 J q t �'" 4,y - D( T 0 E-mail: ma Fio Ida Association of RFILTDas•makes rio representation ea to the legal validity a adequacy cl ant provision of this roan Si any specific transaction.This aandardcad brm ehorld not be used In ownpiet transactor a vitt extensive rides or sddRions.Thk form is avertable for um,by ter antes red aerate industry and is not Mended to identity the user Pt R M-701 .FiriN.TCa'I a registered polo:dim nrmbarihp nwk whidt may be used only by reel WW2 flame/sea who ars merntw+s ot the NATIONAL ASSY ATlpnr OF REALTORS'and who subways b tts Code of Seim The eopy+iptlt laws or the thhed States(17 U.B.Code)bdid the ureic/Modred reproduction of tela iorm by any means irdudha faeshnte a oonputartzed bans, • 318'Buyer(•( )end 5 of( acIcnowlec a receipt of a copy of this page,which la Page 7 a 7 Pages. c0-3 ave.10/00 0 2009 Florida Asad tort of Ramie U Ratite Reserved mid software 10 liaanaad to hi. taamy - Taloa waastemat a aea3ty, LLCI wavatataeaatiea4ak.ea. Wei Black Ridif Phase 1-Plat Book 43,Pages 89 through 92 Lot(s)2,4,5,6,9,10, 11, 12,14, 15, 16,11,20,21,23, 28,31,34,35,37,31,39,40,42,43,46, 47,48, 52,53,54,55,58,59,62,63,64&67 Phase ll-Plat Book 47,Page 40 Lol(s)68,69,73,74,75,76,77,78,81, 84,88,119,90,91,92,93 Phase Ill-Plat Book 48,Page 71 Lot(s)95,96, 98&99 i • ADDENDUM TO FAR COMMERCIAL CONTRACT BLACK BEAR.RIDGE This Addendum to FAR Commercial Contract("Addendum")is made and entered into as of the date set forth on the Contract to which this Addendum is attached("Contract") by and between the parties set forth as Seller and Buyer on said Contract, for the sale and purchase of the following real property: Those Black Bear Ridge subdivision Lots as specifically set forth in the Exhibit to the Commercial Contract(the"Property"). The Contract and this Addendum shall be collectively referred to as the Contract. IN THE EVENT ANY PROVISION OF THIS ADDENDUM CONFLICTS IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ADDENDUM SHALL CONTROL. 1. IT IS EXPRESSLY AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE BUYER THAT ANY 1!, EXPRESS REPRESENTATIONS,WARRANTIES,OR STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE CONTRACT, WHETHER REFERRING TO THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, OR WHETHER REFERRING TO THE EXISTENCE OF FEATURES, FUNCTIONS OR SERVICES RELATING TO OR SERVING THE PROPERTY (INCLUDING, BY WAY OF EXAMPLE ONLY, WHETHER THE PROPERTY HAS PARTICULAR TYPES OF UTILITY SERVICES), ARE SPECIFICALLY WAIVED, DISCLAIMED, AND RENDERED NULL AND VOID AND THE PROPERTY IS BEING SOLD "AS IS-WHERE IS" AND SELLER MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY AND HAS NO OBLIGATIONS FOR REPAIRS THEREOF. 2. APPROVAL BY IBERIA BANK. Buyer acknowledges that Iberia Bank ("Iberia") has a Mortgage on the Property. The Contract is contingent upon a)the approval of the purchase price, terms of the Contract and the Closing Statement;b)Iberia's agreement to accept a payoff.which is less than the balance due on the loan, and : c) Iberia's release and satisfaction of the mortgage upon receipt of the discounted Closing payoff. Iberia shall have twenty(20)days from the Effective Date to approve the purchase price and contract terms (the "Approval Deadline"). In the event that Iberia has not delivered written acceptance within the Approval Deadline, either party may terminate the Contract by delivering written notice to the other. Buyer's right to terminate shall cease to exist if Seller gives notice to Buyer that Seller waives this contingency or that Lender Approval has been obtained prior to Buyer giving Seller notice of termination. TIME PERIODS. All time periods under the Contract shall commence from the date Seller vz either delivers notice to Buyer of Lender Approval or the date Seller has waived the contingency. Buyer and Seller agree to extend the Closing Date in the Contract, not to exceed ten(10)days if Iberia <<� requires additional time to complete the short sale transaction. 3. ASSIGNMENT OF PERMITS,PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. At Closing,Owner to assign(I)its development rights,density rights,drainage rights,and allocations to Buyer(ii)all architectural, engineering, building and similar plans,specifications,drawings,studies, reports, plats, permits surveys, work product,and the like related to the Land and Improvements, (iii)all permits, approvals, and applications with any governmental authorities pertaining to the Land or any portion thereof, and all sewer taps,allocations and agreements for utilities and utility deposits, if any, (iv) all rights and interests appurtenant to the Land and Improvements arising out of or related to any property owners associations, declaration, reciprocal easement agreement,or other encumbrance affecting title to the Land in connection with a common development scheme with other lands, and other embellishments now or in the future on or appurtenant to the Land, and all other intangible property relating to the Land,if any("Intangible Property")to Buyer. 4. SE I LEMENT AS FINAL. a. Acceptance of the Deed at Closing shall constitute Buycr's full acceptance of the condition of the Property and a waiver of Buyer's right to object to its condition or assert any claim related to the Property at any time in the future. b. This provision shall survive delivery of the Deed and the Closing. 5. INDEMNIFICATION. a. Buyer agrees to indemnify and fully protect, defend and hold Seller, its officers, ✓ directors,employees,shareholders,servicers,representatives,agents,attorneys,tenants,brokers,successors and assigns,harmless from and against any and all claims,costs,liens, loss, damages, attorney's fees and expenses of every kind and nature that may be sustained by or made against Seller, its officers, directors, employees, shareholders,servicers, representatives,agents,attorneys,tenants, brokers,successors or assigns,resulting from or arising out of i. Inspections or repairs made by Buyer or its agents, employees, contractors, successors or assigns; ii. The imposition of any fine or penalty imposed by any governmental entity resulting from Buyer's failure to timely obtain any permits,approvals,repairs or inspections or to comply with all applicable laws,rules,ordinances and regulations; iii. Claims or amounts due and owing by Seller for taxes, homeowner's association dues or assessment,or any other terms prorated at Closing under this Contract; iv. Buyer or Buyer's tenants, agents or representatives who use or occupy the Property prior to Closing;and v. All indemnities described in this Contract shall survive the Closing or termination of the Contract. BUYER: SELLER: BUCKSTONE ESTATES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: , die By: � �� - Name. Fti'j[ 3f. it. 1 ego w+en.�tLLC Name: 11.4.,(412e-1 7 144:1V-4 Its: ttic_no Its: C -11-47r— Date: /� us� 34 ,2c Date: 4f w R;tW,{jCreek£rw+rstRFPW,*,,,d,m,to CowlrectBwckrloae.BBR.docx 2 ASSIGNMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND PERMITS THIS ASSIGNMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND PERMITS (this "Assignment".) is made and delivered on this IWO-of December, 2010, by Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (the "Assignor"), to Black Bear Ridge Naples, ULC, a Florida limited liability company(the"Assignee"). STATEMENT OF PURPOSE WHEREAS, Assignor has this day transferred its rights title and interest in that certain real property described as: Exhibit"A"attached hereto; and WHEREAS, Assignor desires to transfer to Assignee all of its right, title and interest in and to all construction plans, permits and government entitlements for its benefit including, but not limited to the items set forth on: 'Exhibit"B"attached hereto. WHEREAS: Assignor is the "Developer" in the Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements For Black Bear Ridge recorded on August 30, 2005 in Official Records Book 3879, at Page 1030 and amendments thereto (the "Declaration") and desires to assign its right, title and interest as "Developer" under the Declaration for the purpose of continuing the process of development of the Black Bear Ridge community and the sale of single family residences to third parties. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN and No/100 DOLLARS ($10.00)and other good and valuable consideration, Assignor hereby agrees as follows: I. Assignor hereby grants, transfers and assigns to Assignee, its successors and assigns, all of Assignor's right, title and interest in, to and under the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements. Notwithstanding the provisions above to the contrary, Assignor shall retain its rights to the escrowed funds on deposit with Collier County pursuant to the Construction, Maintenance and Escrow Agreements for Subdivision Improvements with the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. 2. Assignor warrants and represents to Assignee that: (a) there are no other assignments or conveyances of any of Assignor's rights under the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements to any other person or entity; (b) Assignor has not done any act or failed to do any act which might prevent Assignee from,or limit Assignee in,acting under any of the provisions contained herein; (c) no default exists under the terms of the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements and no prohibition exists in any instrument to which Assignor is a party or by which Assignor is otherwise bound relating to Assignor's right to execute this • Assignment and perform all of Assignor's obligations contained herein. 3. The parties agree that whenever used in this Assignment, the words "Assignor" and "Assignee" shall include their respective heirs, executors, legal representatives, administrators,successors and assigns.The pronouns used herein shall include,when appropriate, either gender and both singular and plural. 4. Assignor represents to Assignee, its successors and assigns, as follows: (a) Assignor is currently the Developer under the Declaration; (b) Assignor has good right, power, and authority to assign and convey its rights as the Developer under the Declaration to Assignee; and (c) this Assignment and Assumption has been duly authorized by Assignor and is executed on behalf of Assignor by a representative duly authorized to execute the same. [SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Assignor has signed and sealed this Assignment or has caused this Assignment to be signed and sealed by duly authorized representatives the day and year first above written. WITNESSES: ASSIGNOR: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC,a Florida limited liability company i i(-1A-1-z- By: a 0-- Jody K.Vanderbilt Q. Grady Minor Its: Co-Manager Print e /6T/Od5(-------. (Corporate Seal) Beth D. Lightner Print Name s OF By: -/),Jody Vanderbilt lt Michael D. Moore Its: Co-Manager Print Name 47,617 A/C-- Beth D. Lightner (Corporate Seal) Print Name STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER " The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Ar'day of December, 2010 by Q. Grady Minor as Co- Manager of Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company on behalf of the company, w]ho is personally known to e or who has produced (type of identification) as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. NOTE: If a type of identification is not inserted in the blank provided, then the person executing this instrument was personally known to me. If the words in the parenthetical "did not" are not circled, then the person executing this instrument did take an oath. ___--_____ - l//C�// " roosts 513 _\ N Public { e(PS ° iii idorw++ My Commission Expires: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /6'' day of December, 2010 by Michael D. Moore as Co- Manager of Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company on behalf of the company, who is personally known to me or who has produced (type of identification) as identification and who did (did not)take an oath. NOTE: If a type of identification is not inserted in the blank provided, then the person executing this instrument was personally known to me. If the words in the parenthetical "did not" are not circled, then the person executing this instrument did take an oath. -= -ten't siitag ,PI Notar -Pub is O'Y 'M. F-. .>.v. �'?i.'-?= '111 t,aosti e:, . My Commission Expires: ... .sTars IlairiPot.;,,. ANCOAMM0DO01te% .° E%PIFie&OMAR.4,9013 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Lots 2,4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20,21, 23, 28, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43,46, 47,48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64,67, Black Bear Ridge-Phase 1, a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 43, Pages 89 through 92,of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. AND Lots 68, 69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, Black Bear Ridge- Phase 2,a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 47,pages 40 through 42, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. AND Lots 95, 96, 98, 99, Black Bear Ridge - Phase 3, a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 48, pages 71 and 72, of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. EXHIBIT B LIST OF ENTITLEMENTS, PERMITS, & PLANS • Zoning/Entitlement o Wolf Creek RPUD(Ord. 03-45); (Ord. 07-46) • Construction Plans& Plat o Collier County-Black Bear Ridge—Phase 1 Plans& Plat(AR-9984) o Collier County - Black Bear Ridge—Phase II Plans&Plat(AR-11262) o Collier County-Black Bear Ridge—Phase III Plans& Plat(AR-11262) • Permits o South Florida Water Management-Water Use Permit(11-02343-W) • Applications(#040629-7); (#040901-6);(#051206-12); o South Florida Water Management - Environmental Resource Permit (11- 02332-P) • Applications(#030328-10); (#05819-20) • Pre-paid Road Impact Fee Credits o $131,670 of Collier County pre-paid COA credits (as of November 2nd, 2010) BrownleeMichael From: Richard Yovanovich [ryovanovich©cyklawfirm.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 3:48 PM To: R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Steve Bracci Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: Stock pf Buckstone Estates Purchase & Sale Agreement.pdf; Assignment of Construction Documents & Permits.pdf Dear Commissioners, The petition before the BCC pertains to the modification of the preserve area. As I previously stated, it is my understanding that the Mederos parcel is limited to a density of 80 units. Mr. Bracci provided you with some of the legislative history supporting my understanding with regards to the PUD limiting density. Mr.Anderson stated to the BCC that the change in preserve area is related to increasing the lot size. However, the current plat submitted by his client clearly shows the purpose is to increase density beyond the PUD permitted density of 80 units for the Mederos parcel. Increasing density cannot occur through the Insubstantial Change process. Therefore, as long as the approval of the reduction in preserve size is conditioned upon development of the Mederos parcel being limited to 80 units, my client does not object to the petition filed by Mr.Anderson's client. I appreciate that the prior property owner had other site plans with a higher density. However, there is no evidence that the prior site plans were approved by the County. Accordingly, the prior site plans are irrelevant and not consistent with the PUD. As to the ownership of the 103 units,that is a private matter. We do not agree with Mr. Bracci's position on ownership of the units. Because Mr. Bracci spent most of his allotted time addressing ownership of the excess units, we are providing copies of some documents addressing the density rights in the PUD.The Purchase and Sale Agreement clearly identifies that Stock Development purchased the excess density. Also attached is an assignment document assigning developer rights to Black Bear Ridge Naples, LLC. Finally, the Cost Sharing Agreement addresses the excess density.At no time was the excess density assigned to Mr. Bracci's client. Mr. Bracci also spent a lot of time addressing the payment for the intersection improvements at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. My client has already agreed to pay the 30%share of Black Bear Ridge set forth in the Cost Sharing Agreement for the right and left turn lanes at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road.The 30% share was based upon an allotted density of 203 units. Only 100 units were built. Black Bear Ridge, LLC remains the owner of the unbuilt 103 units. The unbuilt units have not been assigned to the residents of Black Bear Ridge or to the Homeowner's Association. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Richard D.Yovanovich Esq. Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. COLEMAN 4001 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 300 Naples, YOVAN OVI C Florida 34103 EST (239)435-35-3535 ER (239)435-1218(f) 1 This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above email address.Thank you. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill ; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna ; KlatzkowJeff; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc: Steve Bracci ; Richard Yovanovich Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands. The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering. The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFYPASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT t Aw 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 2 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson@napleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us (collect) at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination,forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net;pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson<rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci • No, Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 3 Commissioner, Pertinent pages from County records have been attached in hopes of allowing a better understanding of the Wolf Creek PUD specifically with regards to density allocation, the proposed Vanderbilt Reserve site plan and offsite improvements. A) History of density allocation in Wolf Creek RPUD: Sept 23, 2003 - Ordinance 2003-45 - Wolf Creek PUD established - 147.69 acres with 591 dwelling units approved and maximum permitted density of 4 dwelling units per acre - no allocation to any specific parcel or development but separate parcels delineated August 23, 2004 - Cost Sharing Agreement entered into OR 3635: Dwelling units assigned to parcels - note parcel numbers for CSA are different than those in County WCPUD document Upon execution of the agreement there was an immediate transfer of dwelling units from parcels 4, 5 & 6 to parcel 1 Following that transfer, the owner of parcel 1&2 had a limited time option to purchase additional density from the owner of parcels 7, 8 & 9, and this option expired in 2005 Density only transferable with written permission of owner of property losing density Runs with the land - owner is property owner May 22, 2007 - Ordinance 2007-46 - Mederos 20 acre parcel added to WCPUD BCC minutes May 22-23, 2007 pages 70-71 80 dwelling units requested for now Vanderbilt Reserve Parcel 9 no density bonuses requested, density of 3.99 80 dwelling units specifically allocated to the -,20 acres which is now the Vanderbilt Reserve Parcel 9 - pg 17 Ord 2007-46 states "80 dwelling units approved in the the 20 acres being added" May 14, 2013 - Ordinance 2013-37 - Scenic Woods and a portion of Palermo Cove brought into WCPUD 83 dwelling units specifically assigned to parcels 1A-3A density was assigned, thus only usable by those parcels page 11 Ord 2013-37 Minutes from CCPC dated March 21, 2013 pigs 53-54: County and developer lawyers worked together to construct verbiage that would specifically allocate the 83 dwelling units that were being added to parcels 1 A- 3A only and limited the density in 1 A-3A such that they could not increase their density by taking dwelling units from those already present in WCPUD - thus, no pool of dwelling units in WCPUD, they were all allocated to specific parcels by the CSA and the subsequent WCPUD amendments in 2007 and 2013 - see chairman's concerns - the allocation was a purposeful intent by the county Observations: All dwelling units within WCPUD have been specifically allocated to parcels - there are no "free"dwelling units within a PUD pool For those parcels party to the CSA, the dwelling units run with the land and the owners The CSA differentiates between developer and owner A developer does not have any claim to dwelling units other than to those allocated to land that he personally owns Dwelling units governed by the CSA cannot be transferred without written permission from the owner losing density Based upon the CSA allocations, there are 103 dwelling units allocated to Black Bear Ridge parcels that have not been used and are controlled by the individual lot owners not the developer - these cannot be transferred without written authorization from the lot's owner Vanderbilt Reserve parcel 9 of WCPUD or parcel 3 of the CSA is allocated 80 dwelling units by OR 2007-46 and approved for a density of 4 Vanderbilt Reserve parcel 3B of WCPUD being — 12 acres or—60% of parcel 4 of the CSA would be allocated 24 dwelling units based upon acreage (there are 40 units total allocated to parcel 4 by the CSA, which is parcel 3A and 3B of the WCPUD) Conclusions: The county has recognized the CSA allocation of dwelling units within WCPUD and further, it has allocated additional dwelling units to the PUD according to parcel in all subsequent ordinances/PUD amendments B) The Vanderbilt Reserve Site Plan Observations: The proposed site plan for Vanderbilt Reserve shows 215 dwelling units total on the two parcels making up the development The southern parcel (#9 of WCPUD) has 115 dwelling units platted and 4 partial units The southern parcel (#9 of WCPUD) is only allocated 80 units by OR 2007-46 The northern parcel (#3B of WCPUD) has 96 dwelling units platted and 4 partial units The northern parcel is allocated 24 dwelling units by the CSA based upon acreage it consists of -12 acres, which is -60% of the total acreage of parcel #3 WCPUD (parcel #4 of CSA) - which was allocated 40 dwelling units by the CSA, therefore based upon acreage, 3B would be allocated 24 dwelling units by the CSA Conclusions:The proposed site development plan for Vanderbilt Reserve has platted density not available or approved C) Offsite Improvements for Wolf Creek PUD - PristineNanderbilt Beach intersection Observations: Ordinance 2003-45 - WCPUD Master Plan Exhibit A shows a right turn in lane from Vanderbilt onto Pristine - note also right turn in lanes at Buckstone and into Mission Hills - these have been constructed The right turn in lane from Vanderbilt onto Pristine is present on all of the Master Plan exhibit A's through OR 2013-37 2004 CSA- OR 3635 Pgs 1696-1697 Phase I Budget for Black Bear Ridge shows line items for offsite improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection with monies to be allocated for WB Rt, EB Lt turn lanes as well as signalization There is a note under assumptions: "Vanderbilt Beach Rd temporary turn lanes not required (i.e. payments to county to build improvements to support project and to built as part of 6 lane improvements)." 2005 Construction Escrow Agreement with County for Subdivision Improvements Improvements set forth in the "Estimate" by Grady Minor are required improvements by Collier County ordinances Offsite improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection included WB Rt and EB Lt turn lanes as well as signalization - these were "required" The cost of these improvements were funded by the construction loan agreement -with a $3,057,906.50 construction loan held in a specific account The county had the right to utilize the funds for construction of the required improvements if the developer failed to complete them The requirements were binding upon the Developer's successors Google Maps - if you use google maps to look at Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd through Rt 41, the Pristine Drive/Vanderbilt Beach Rd intersection appears to be the only intersection that does not have a right turn in lane Conclusions: At the Vanderbilt/Pristine intersection a west bound right turn in lane and east bound left turn lane as well as signalization of the intersection was required from the beginning The County required the Developer of BBR to construct these offsite improvements - the most recent developer There was an Escrow agreement funded with > $3 million dollars to fund infrastructure which included the offsite improvements The improvements were not made The county was responsible for supervising the completion of the infrastructure improvements required of the developer The county did not exercise it's option to utilize the escrow funds to complete the required improvements The bond is still available (communication from county) The required improvements are the responsibility of the developer not the current homeowners of BBR and if the developer did not complete them, then the county had the means and funds available Thank you, BrownleeMichael From: R. Bruce Anderson [rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:52 AM To: Steve Bracci Cc: SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: Re: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: image001.jpg; image002.png Categories: PRINTED All, If the County had approved the prior owner's conceptual plan, I would have said "approved" and referenced an SDP#. That prior plan included the existing conceptual preserve area that would now be modified by my client's insubstantial change application. The point is that whether the conceptual Preserve is changed or not makes no difference about how many homes can fit on the land, regardless of the existing or modified preserve area. Opponents claim otherwise. They are simply wrong. I do have one correction from the project's engineer. The number of dwelling units on the prior owner's plan was 215. The 254 is the number is the number of remaining unbuilt units approved in the PUD. Thank You, R Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 Telephone: 239-659-4942 direct 239-261-9300 main Facsimile: 239-261-0884 RBAnderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:RBAnderson@napleslaw.corn> www.napleslaw.com<http://www.napleslaw.corn> On Jul 7, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com» wrote: Dear Board - this is in response to Mr. Anderson's email below. I believe you should ask Mr. Anderson to clarify what he means when he states: "The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong." The impression left by Mr. Anderson is that the prior 254 site plan was approved by the county, and that the new presently pending 215 unit site plan now reduces the approved site plan. Mr. Anderson should clarify whether the county ever approved a 254 site plan, or whether he is instead just referencing a concept plan on a sheet of paper that was never approved. Sincerely, 1 Steve Bracci <image002.png> Steven J. Bracci, PA, Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635<tel:%28239%29%20596-2635>; Fax: (239) 431-6045<tel:%28239%29%20431- 6045>; email: steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net<mailto:burtsaunders@colliergov.net>; pennytaylor@colliergov.net<mailto:pennytaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net<mailto:WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net»; andysolis@colliergov.net<mailto:andysolis@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net<mailto:DonnaFiala@colliergov.net»; KlatzkowJeff <JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net»; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net<mailto:nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net>; michaelbosi@colliergov.net<mailto:michaelbosi@colliergov.net> Cc: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com»; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com<mailto:ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com>) <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com<mailto:ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com» Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD / Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else. The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however, the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved. The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED, TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more 2 environmentally valuable lands. The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering. The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law <image001.jpg> Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com> www.napleslaw.com<http://www.napleslaw.com> This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us (collect) at 239-261- 9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff <JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net<mailto:burtsaunders@colliergov.net>; pennytaylor@colliergov.net<mailto:pennytaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net<mailto:WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net»; andysolis@colliergov.net<mailto:andysolis@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net<mailto:DonnaFiala@colliergov.net»; R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com» Subject: Wolf Creek PUD / Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, 3 Steve Bracci <image002.png> Steven J. Bracci, PA, Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635<tel:%28239%29%20596-2635>; Fax: (239) 431-6045<tel:%28239%29%20431- 6045>; email: Steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 4 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A.4. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Arthrex Boulevard, Application Number PL20170001077. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE Meetings ❑Correspondence E-mail Calls 16.A.5. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes Phase 1A, Application Number PL20170001378. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE Meetings Correspondence I E-mail1 ❑Calls Ex parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A.4. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Arthrex Boulevard, Application Number PL20170001077. 1 NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE Meetings I 'Correspondence I IE-mail ( 'Calls 16.A.5. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes Phase 1A, Application Number PL20170001378. VI NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE I 'Meetings Correspondence I E-mailIflCaIIs Ex parte Items - Commissioner Burt Saunders COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Board of Zoning Appeals 8.A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Judith S. Palay and 92 other property owners within the Cocohatchee Bay Neighborhood Communities,filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the administrative approval of building separations, building widths, building dwelling units, and building heights in the Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA-PL20160002242 for Kalea Bay aka Kinsale Condominium Phases Il-VI. The subject property is located at the northwest and northeast corners of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South and Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170002165] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails ❑Calls Meetings: Diane Rupnow, Diane Ebert, Karen Bishop Correspondence & Emails: Numerous letters and emails from residents and construction trade groups Advertised Public Hearings 9.A. ***This item has been continued from the June 27, 2017 BCC meeting.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended, the Wolf Creek RPUD, to approve an insubstantial change to the PUD, to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only, and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 189± acres. [PDI-PL20160000404] (Mike Bosi, Director, Zoning Division) NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls Meetings: Terri Abrams, Steve Bracci, Bruce Anderson Correspondence & Emails: Numerous emails from attorneys representing project development clients and residents of Black Bear Ridge LykinsDave From: William Becraft <wbecraft@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:27 AM To: FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; BillMcDanial@colliergov.net Cc: William Becraft; Marc Johnson;jeff barkley-beachwalk;Jon Christensen; Tom Glennon; Jim McComb; Richardson, George ;Topper Woelfer Subject: One Naples & Kalea Bay Dear Commissioners, As a resident of the Beachwalk community, I must express my displeasure with the proposed development of One Naples and to the changes considered for Kalea Bay. A 20 story condo tower and three 6 story condos with 300 units are too much for the Vanderbilt Beach area. All the near by 20 story buildings are in the Pelican Bay development, please be strong enough to limit buildings north of Vanderbilt Beach Rd to a more reasonable height, similar to the Turtle club, etc. The increased traffic will be a nightmare and have you ever tried to find a spot on the beach, so let's not add another 600+ people. Kalea Bay should have never been allowed to build 5 hi rises in the first place, so please make them conform to the original plan and not allow them to make their buildings wider or taller. Isn't it interesting that the meetings for One Naples happen in the middle of May, after most seasonal residents have left for the summer. I am writing this because my wife and I fly north this afternoon and we will be unable to attend the meeting this evening. I am asking that you do not approve any condo over 6-7 stories and that the total number of units for the One Naples development be limited to 100-150. With Appreciation, Bill Becraft 564 Beachwalk Circle Naples, Fl 34108 1 LykinsDave From: thomas moore <mooredoctom@me.com> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 12:37 PM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; Fiala Donna Cc: SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny Subject: Ritz and Stock Developmenr Gentlemen: As a 20 year resident of Naples, I am writing to you concerning my alarm over the proposed developments at the Rita Carlton and Vanderbilt beach. I have seen and reviewed in detail these proposals. I believe that they are not in the best interests of the citizens of Naples and SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. I was attracted to move to Naples because it was so different from other Florida communities.There was not the crowding and congestion and lack of green space that is particularly noticeable along the East Coast of the state. In recent years however there is increased traffic and congestion in the area. In particular Vanderbilt Beach Road is backed up in traffic from the beach to Tamiami Trail. This road could not handle any increase in traffic that would be created by these projects. Local residents would have trouble getting in and out of their homes. Vanderbilt Beach Road and this beach is the most popular for individuals who do not have homes on the shoreline. These projects will particularly handicap these individuals from access to the beach. There has been a great outcry of protest from my neighbors in Pelican Bay and Vanderbilt Beach area regarding these projects. We ask that you deny these requests. Thomas S Moore MD 8665 Bay Colony Drive,#1403 Naples, FI, 34108 1 LykinsDave From: Stavropoulos Linda <ilindastav@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 9:00 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Staock and HOST development proposals... Please give serious consideration to the Stock Development and HOST proposals in the Vanderbilt Beach area.The beach in that area is over capacity at this time. The traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Drive is at its limit. Add the proposed development projects and the area will be at its breaking point. Thank you for thinking of my concerns in making your decision. Linda Stavropoulos 8665 Bay Colony Drive,#803 1 LykinsDave From: schultw@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 10:15 AM To: FialaDonna; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy Cc: npaa4u@gmail.com; mstra5050@gmail.com Subject: One Naples proposal Dear County Commissioners: As a 15 year resident of the Vanderbilt Beach community, I have observed numerous changes to our North Naples community during that time. The current proposal called One Naples as put forth by Stock Development deserves some consideration. I understand that progress and improvements can be positive. However, let me start off with an overriding concern I have with the proposal... density. 300 units? YIKES !! You folks quibbled over the Beachbox possibly using some parking spots and causing traffic issues. What do you think 300 condos are going to bring to the area? A 21 story high rise does not even come close to fitting in with the surrounding area. It would be in imposition, like a prison watch tower, cowering over the beach and the existing complexes. A high rise should be a non-starter for this One Naples project. Stock touts the 19 story Tierste (a 1/2 miles off the beach with the building surrounded by mangroves) and the 14 story Ritz Carlton (which has set backs of its own property all around) as examples of why their 21 story "fits." HOGWASH !! Two to five story structures is what the neighbors have....and that is what should be built. Three 5 story buildings on the lagoon? Has anyone looked how tight that would be? 5 stories is a maybe; I would prefer to see 3 story buildings and only 2 of them with green space between the buildings and the neighbors. Can we please still at least see some water?We don't need or want to be walled off from some of the natural ambience of our neighborhood. Adjacent to these proposed 5 story buildings is a 75 slip marina....Stock's own pictures only show 34 slips and that looks tight. Besides downsizing the marina to a reasonable size (20-25?), FREE PUBLIC ACCESS should be part of the County's negotiations with Stock. Why not require them to provide and maintain a kayak/canoe launch within this marina for all County residents? While on the subject of negotiations, why privatize the roads of Southbay, Gulfshore Court and Center Street?These currently serve to provide a neighborhood feel to the area and lets one escape from the high traffic Gulfshore Blvd. and Vanderbilt Beach Rd, whether it be on foot, bike or vehicle. (did I mention density?). How about traffic? This 3 little neighborhood roads provide relief from the 2 main drags for many"locals." The roads should be kept public property. If the County doesn't want to care for the roads, let Stock care for them with a public easement for all to use. Thank you for your help in 'right' sizing this project and keeping it within the realm of what the community and taxpayers (and voters) desire. Sincerely, Willie Schult e-mail: schultw(a.aol.com a resident of Beachwalk 1 LykinsDave From: Neil Wise <neilwise@camden.rutgers.edu> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 5:35 PM To: SaundersBurt; FialaDonna;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: solis@colliergov.net Subject: Fw: Proposed development Commissioners, Below is a letter I sent to Commissioner Solis (and he has replied), but it should be known by all of you: I own two condominiums in Beachwalk, and I agree with the position of NPAA opposing the proposed development of the N.E. corner of Vanderbilt Beach Rd. and Gulf Shore. This has become an extremely congested area the last few years, and the proposal would significantly exacerbate the problem. The beach is over-crowded, the traffic is too heavy, and it's becoming more dangerous for the many pedestrians and bicyclists. nw Neil Wise Adjunct Professor Career Counselor Rutgers Law School Camden, New Jersey 08102-1203 856-225-6508 ofc 856-397-3100 cell 1 LykinsDave From: Maureen Straight <mstra5050@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 5:23 PM To: SolisAndy; DannaFiala@colliergov.net; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt;Jane Myers; Sal Privitera;fran muffin; Bob Chapman; info@onenaplesliving.com Subject: Stock Development Vanderbilt Beach Proposal Attachments: VanderbiltBeach_CommSolis.docx Hello Attached please find our letter of concerns regarding the proposed Stock Development builds. Feel free to pass it to all who may have interest or concerns. We would anticipate a reply from the commissioners Maureen and Gene Straight 1 May 22, 2017 This is an open letter to our Commissioner Solis and the Board of Collier County Commissioners As residents of Naples Park and your constituents, we are writing to express our concern about the proposed Stock Development "One Naples" project. We support the Naples Park Area Association concerns voiced by our President in a letter to you last week. We attended the public meeting and spoke to Brian Stock and his representatives expressing our concerns about the environmental impact on Vanderbilt beach and Wiggin's state park as well as the Vanderbilt Lagoon. We are particularly concerned about the impact of the increase in automobile, walking, and bicycle and motorcycle traffic on the safety of an area that is the single access point to Vanderbilt beach. The response included how much research, time and money has gone into the development, over the past two years. We were shocked that there was so much activity around acquiring all of the property needed and no previous mention to any of the residents of its future use until now. The Naples News reported that 4500 invitations were sent out to the residents. No invitation was received in our home or in any of our neighbors. Had the Naples News not reported the meeting we would have missed this early information. A variance will be needed to change the use from commercial to residential, a variance to approve the number of docks at the proposed marina and a variance to approve the massive height of the tower building. The need for variance implies that there is a proposed change in the character of the properties in the zone. We are opposed to changing the character of our neighborhood. Many representatives we spoke to from Stock indicated that state and federal approval had already been obtained and the last step in the process was the application to Collier County. We request notice of any public meetings held for input from about this proposal before the filing and the date of the filing of the application and subsequent hearing by the commission. I am asking that you expedite the dissemination that information to all of the residence of your area including those constituents gone north as season has ended. We would appreciate you investigating how this project meets any of the codes for: a high velocity hurricane zone, high wind speed zone, flood plain zone, costal water and environmental impact of number of boats (75 are proposed) in the lagoon. In addition, what will be the impact of a minimum of 300 people and 600 cars on sewage, wastewater flow and air pollution on the area. I would also like to know where to find the traffic study for this project. To my knowledge, there is no Collier County code for beach density, the actual numbers of bodies on the beach. However, anyone who uses Vanderbilt beach knows that the addition of 300-600+ bodies on the beach will not make for any improvement in the character of the neighborhood. During Season the access to Vanderbilt beach is quite challenging. The parking fills early in the morning, the police are required to direct traffic at the corner of Vanderbilt beach and gulf shore for pedestrian and auto safety and the left over traffic is backed up to Vanderbilt drive and some days to 41. The spillover of beachgoers to Wiggin's State Park will not afford much relief, as the major issue there is the limited parking, which closes access at 10 am during season. Then there is the issue of the proprietary tide line ownership of the many hotels and condominiums on the beach. As more beach goers use the county, access points between Vanderbilt and Wiggins the conflict between owners and beach goers will escalate. The addition of this density of humans on this small corner of collier is not prudent for any humans, neighborhoods, traffic, biking and the blue zone status. One of the last questions we asked at the meeting was what community improvement projects had Stock Development considered as part of this massive project that will influence this area? Perhaps they would pay for a signal at the corner of Vanderbilt beach road and gulf shore, or to pay for the dredging sand to be brought to the beach to improve the communities and their prospective clients' environment. There was no such consideration. The community commitment from Pelican Bay is evident in the community parks and green spaces we all enjoy. We are currently undergoing multiple constructions projects to improve our neighborhood potable water, sewage, wastewater removal and power upgrades. We are also impacted by the closure of Vanderbilt drive to the north. We are willing to weather these, as they are truly improvements to our quality of life. The addition of the proposed Stock One Naples project will not be an improvement. We know your attention as ours is focused on maintaining and preserving the character, beauty and livability of our neighborhood and we are counting on you and your fellow commissioners to support our neighborhood's livability We appreciate your attention and response Gene and Maureen Straight 562 100th Ave. North. Naples, Florida, 34108 genestraightl@gmail.com / 239.593.1106 LykinsDave From: kkevwi@aol.com Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 10:11 AM To: FialaDonna; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt Subject: Fwd: Proposed Stock Development at intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Rd & Gulfshore I'd also like to include each of you on this Email also... Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: kkevwi@aol.com Date: May 30, 2017 at 4:29:22 PM EDT To: AndySolis@colliergov.net Cc: npaa4u@gmail.com Subject: Proposed Stock Development at intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Rd & Gulfshore Andy, I am also a homeowner in Naples Park, drawn there by its central location to so many conveniences. Best of all, we have such an easy and SAFE access to our beautiful Vanderbilt Beach. It only take a holiday weekend like yesterday's Memorial Day, to remind us of just how snarled conditions become with the additional people. Cars attempting to get to the Beach parking garage were backed up in both directions, with police directing traffic. (And, of course,the nearby Wiggins State Park was full by 10 AM.) With the additional pedestrians and bicyclists also, it becomes unsafe for everyone. I can't imagine adding the congestion of another 300 residences in an oversized monstrosity on that corner. Neither Vanderbilt Beach Road nor Gulfshore Blvd N were built to accommodate that volume. Please keep in mind that Vanderbilt Beach is a PUBLIC Beach and should be accessible to anyone, not just a privileged minority. This Email can be added to the 'NO' pile growing on your desk. Sincerely, Kristie Kevern 796 108th Ave N Naples, FL. 34108 Sent from my iPad 1 LykinsDave From: Ira Rubenstein <irar@me.com> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 3:48 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Development Dear Commissioner, We are full time residents at 445 Cove Tower Dr in Wiggins Bay Community and are very concerned about the continuing development and what seems like runaway growth in our community. The volume of traffic pressures on our infrastructure and yes, the view on the waterfront will be severely affected by the building of the towers known as Kalea Bay along Vanderbilt Drive. I urge you to vote against any changes in the approved plans for these towers that would increase the size of these structures and allow them to be closer to each other. Thank you for your consideration. Ira S. Rubenstein 445 Cove Tower Dr Apt 903 Naples FL 34110 239-597-3141 845-341-3099 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 LykinsDave From: Charles Freeman <freemct@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 8:33 AM To: SolisAndy; McDanielBill; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny Dear Sirs: I have been a winter resident of Naples since 1997. I reside at The Remington, in Bay Colony and Pelican Bay. Please add my voice to the legion of us in North Naples who oppose two projects:the proposed One Naples development at the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulfshore Drive, and the rumored condominium tower by Host Hotels and Resorts at the Naples Beach Ritz hotel.The impact of both projects on the already problematic traffic situation on VBR and the already congested Vanderbilt Beach would be ruinous. More broadly, I would ask that the five of you come up with a Naples-wide master plan for the further development of our community. Those of us who chose to reside in Naples chose this coast of South Florida because of the horrendous traffic, lack of green space, and overbuilding on the East Coast. I am very concerned that Naples will wind up like Miami. I see too many big buildings going into small spaces, e.g. the two projects above. Please hire a top consultant to come up with a master plan for Naples. As a taxpayer,that is one bill I would happy to see the county footing. Respectfully, Chuck Freeman RECEIVED JUN 0 9 2017 OFFICES OF COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DiStria 1 -------- District 2 District 3r......_.._._ Letters District a Dietriat!3,� - Not good for Vanderbilt Beach Regarding the story headlined"High-rise condos near Vanderbilt Beach in North Naples propmeosed," ting was while the gesture to hold a"community „Therg were admirable,this was not a"public hearing. no formal presentations,but instead a series of tables to speak with contractors of the developer. The most egregious statements were around traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road based on a theoretical traffic study which concludes there is still plenty of room ved with for more traffic.Clearly none of the people this project live in Vanderbilt Beach during season, holidays and sunset every day.There were no Collier Coun ,which would have b beneficial to hear community officials at the feedback on planned een rezoning proposals. The developer states there are three other high-rises in the immediate area with which it fits in:The Ritz- Carlton and two others in Bay Colony with private roads.The Stock PR people are really trying spin this and their statements don't even match up to the devel- oper's models or multiple drawings. Traffic congestion,environmental disruption on Vanderbilt Lagoon,construction noise,dirt and safety issues for pedestrians and beachgoers:How can this overstuffed turkey and permanent traffic nightmare be good for Vanderbilt Beach? Cathy O'Brien,Naples F c, 0cC- C U _ 'g . 1 - alloOtr"Vtgq,,4•7/,,,,,.„ ,.. Ai AA&hii - -'':':',1:67(.;t::,"'1'-',',':*':('',..:",'.-,•:,,,,,, ,,,r,,A,',V-=','„`-,- .; t-,'''lly(1 • .... ..... ( ......_ _-.1.:-7::-7„-,R4.-,%- :,.. ... .... Lb '----. ....... = . ---4. \I) ... .... , . .. i -1 • C3 4 ....) (t's .......,. ..... ... ....... ......,, .... V ........ ...... ......_ ..,., . ......... • R.r .I.—I'' ...—.., _., P1 '''''••••• --.. —.... .--. ........ .... 1 . ...1 4 I - 0 ........ ...... ...., ..... tx, A ...... ,-......„ .....--- ..... .°:. r---..., •., •••••• li" ' '' ...•••••• 44. . ..= C.-) .....-.-. ......._ ••• .... ......... .... t." .4:4 . "...... =Z.. . . SKI •••••......., C'f) ... • N•\ (I) ......... a) , 0 I --. .......„ 1.ti .•-C) 1 CI CZ 0 r\) f,) J- -. -......_. .,...) .A.- ,' . . * '-... .e... . 1 , . . . . 1 1 . -. - _. - ..-.• v-:-..!....„„ „„, . .\_______ • .. .,, ... f f LykinsDave From: Gregory.Bennett@Ferguson.com Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:23 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Collier county team, My name is Greg Bennett and I work at Ferguson Enterprises. I have been a part of the Kalea project for the past 5 years. I mainly work on multifamily and have got to spend time in high rises both on our side and the other coast. There is nothing that represents Naples better than Kalea Bay. The project is unlike anything else in the state. It's a high level project, that has the quality and look that all of our northern friends are seeking. Many of the clients are also local Naples people looking for a second home. I know many of the buyers and can't explain their excitement to move in. These are people coming for weeks at a time. From a personal level, the stoppage of work would have a major effect on the economy and my family. My company alone has forecasted this work and planned accordingly. Many people have been hired and trained to service this job as we should. We have based things on feedback from sales. I am Estero residence who has a huge desire to move to Naples. I work in Naples, go to church at North Naples and mainly dine down south. My wife asks me every day when we can move. Projects like Kalea keep our dreams alive of being able to make the move down. We are younger(35 years old)with 3 kids. Naples schools for high school is what we want. I can't explain how many estero/fort myers friends of mine have the same dream to get down. Projects like Kalea provide the income to achieve this. Yes there are over 300 people on the project but there are a ton more behind the scenes. From the distributers to the designers, we would all be hurt from any stoppage. We are the people who are here year round spending money while others are gone. We are the future leaders of our community. Nothing represents Naples better than Kalea bay. Thanks for your time, Gregory Bennett Builder Sales Ferguson,a Wolseley Company 38 Goodlette-Frank Rd, Naples Fl 34102 USA 0:239-963-0080 C: 239-872-2713 gregory.bennett@ferguson.com 1 LykinsDave From: Nancy Farnsworth <tennis.nut@mindspring.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:37 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Hearing Dear County Commissioners, As a native Neapolitan, I have seen our county go through many many changes in my 53 years. Some have been very hard to take, yet overall I believe our County has been lead in a good direction with a balanced growth. My livelihood for over 30 years has been in the construction industry. The company I work for made it through the very difficult downturn in the housing/construction market, however only 21 of 192 employees kept their jobs and those who were still employed struggled with significant pay cuts and less working hours. Fortunately, the past couple years it has turned around. My employer is directly impacted by Kalea Bay. There were 25 employees who directly worked on building 1 and 5 others who did Kalea Bay work at the office including myself. If the Kalea Bay building 2 does not proceed, numerous employees, full time residents and your constituents will lose their jobs. Please stand firm against those who oppose this project that has already been approved. Thank you for your service and your consideration in this matter. Nancy Farnsworth 7818 Emerald Circle Naples, FL LykinsDave From: Rene Acres-Hatch <Rene@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:52 AM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Kalea Bay Burt Saunders, I am writing to express my concerns for halting the construction of Kalea Bay 2. I have resided in Naples for over 48 years and have been employed in the construction industry for over 30 years. Tourism is our industry here in Naples and construction is a large part of what keeps Naples growing to accommodate the new corners in our area. Halting the progress of Kalea Bay would have impacts on several areas that should be of concern to ALL Naples residents, not just the few in Glen Eden who might have their view obstructed. Glen Eden should take into consideration that they were entitled to develop their community without opposition from others in the area. Please know the decision that you make concerning this project will set precedence for all future projects and will affect the employment of hundreds of construction workers. I am asking that you please honor your approval of the development of Kalea Bay. Sincerely, Rene' Rene'.acres-3-latch R Acres Plumbing Co LLC 1911 Seward Ave, Suite 3 Naples, FL. 34109 PH: 239-598-0800 FX: 239-597-1590 Rene@acresplumbing.com -fii ❑!' 1❑ ACRES ` rrj,�_ �iUMBING ''.�`- t' 7 it 0 '' d. 24 HOUR EMERGENCY SERVICE Website Like us on Facebook 1 LykinsDave From: Ron Bowling <ron@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:23 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Dear Collier County Commissioners, I wanted to send my personal concerns in reference to possible delays in the construction of the next building at the Kalea Bay project. I work for a plumbing company that is currently working on the Kalea Bay project.With the planned start of building#2 we are able to keep our staffing working anticipating the next building to start. If it does not, there will be layoffs due to lack of work. I personally have struggled as many others for the last 8 to 9 years trying to survive the hardships in the most drastic down turn in construction this area has seen. It was a long, slow recovery and we are just now becoming hopeful in our futures in the construction trade and regaining some ground. I am very sensitive in concern with growth and over-development and believe our local government has found a balance for everyone in my personal experience of living here for over 40 years. I was fond of the Wiggins Pass area in the 70's when there was little more than a Marina and some small developments.That is not the case these days and much of that area is built on and believe the very people complaining reside in the adjacent areas probably have not been here for very many years. Nor do they likely reside here year round or earn a living here. Kalea Bay has already been approved and site developed for the future construction of these buildings.The potential opportunities for our working residents and the revenue to local business will be felt county wide and will effect hundreds upon hundreds of the collier working class and business owner residents. Please represent us in allowing this building to proceed as planned. Our livelihoods are counting on you. Sincerely, Ron Bowling Acres&Son Plumbing Inc. 5701 Houchin St Suite#1 Naples, Fl 34109 Office 239-597-5031 Fax 239-597-3740 ron@acresplumbing.com www.acresplumbing.com LykinsDave From: Charlie Bauman <Charlie@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:47 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Ron Bowling; Nancy Farnsworth Subject: Kalea Bay Building #2 Dear Collier County Commissioners, I am currently an employee of Acres and Son Plumbing, Inc. , a Collier County company for some 40 years. I have worked for Acres and Son Plumbing for over 8 of the past 15 years. I personally worked at the Kalea Bay job site full time as an assistant project manager from 04/01/16 until 12/31/16. Presently our staff at Kalea Bay site is only 20%of what it was because Building#2 has not yet started. Acres and Son Plumbing has already been negatively impacted because Building#2 has not started. If building 2 is not constructed, Acres will be even more seriously harmed as will my work with the company. In addition to Acres, many other subcontractors are being negatively affected. Hundreds of construction industry jobs are at risk if Kalea Bay Building#2 and further buildings are not allowed to be constructed. I sincerely ask for your consideration to allow the construction of Building #2 and further buildings at Kalea Bay to proceed. Thank you for your consideration. Kind Regards, Charlie Bauman Acres &Son Plumbing, Inc. 5701 Houchin Street, Suite 1 Naples, FL 34109 239-597-5031 Cell 239-734-0804 Charlie@acresplumbing.com 1 LykinsDave From: Chris.Brasher@Ferguson.com Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:39 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: FW: Kalea Bay Bld #2 To the Collier County Commissioners, I understand that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned citizen who is heavily involved in the construction industry as I work for Ferguson Enterprise which employees 700+associates (quality jobs+ benefits) in Florida in our plumbing division alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be directly affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. Ferguson is very involved in both our communities and by providing quality opportunities, as well as teaching, coaching,training, and furthering developing people's skills. Our industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Chris Brasher Ferguson a Wolseley Company Director of Branch Management- Florida District 10355 S Orange Ave. Orlando,Fl 32824 0: (407)856-5161 M:239-823-0935 Ferguson Online -Always Open! http://www.fergusononline.com 1 LykinsDave From: Jessica Judd <jessicajudd@crsmithllc.com> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:54 AM To: 'BiiiMcDaniel@colliergov.neT; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: Kalea Bay Bld #2 To the Collier County Commissioners, I have just been informed that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned Naples local (over 31 years in Naples and two generations before) who is heavily involved in the construction industry as I work for C.R. Smith which contracts and manages over 50+ subcontractors that employ hundreds of workers in Florida in our contracting alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project.The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank you for your time! Jessica Judd Assistant to Chad Smith/Office Manager lessicajudd@crsmithllc.com P: (239) 596-8003 F: 239.288.0575 1110 C.R. SMITH. LLC GON6''R1.,CTION 1 LykinsDave From: Teale Mueller <tealemueller@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 11:59 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners, My name is Teale Mueller. I am a sales associate and team member that has been instrumental in the day to day sales process of the Kalea Bay Community. I have also been involved in general real estate in Collier County for years. Our team has been involved with so many aspects of representing this wonderful Kalea Bay community and has been immersed in assisting not only our Kalea Bay buyers,but also providing information to and fostering relationships with hundreds of our Collier County full time and seasonal residents who have visited our site.. I am in a position to see the excitement of our future Kalea Bay residents, many who have worked,planned and saved over many years to be in a position to fulfill their dream of living in a community such as Kalea Bay. Another great aspect of being involved in this project is that I have also had the opportunity to see that hundreds of local men and women from many different companies/trades are proudly invested in the employment opportunities a project like Kalea Bay creates. From cleaners, to landscapers, construction workers, designers, material suppliers, cooperating realtors all who have benefited and have been able to provide a better quality of life for themselves and their families. Sometimes our society highlights and amplifies the negative opinions of a few people. This is unfortunate. I believe we all have a responsibility to open our eyes and ears to all of the good and opportunity a project like Kalea Bay presents to so many in our community. Kalea Bay will have such a positive impact in supporting our current and future local economy. There is no doubt that this unique and beautiful community will improve the lives of many for years to come. I thank you for your time and consideration, Teale Mueller Sales Associate Wilson 6,Associates i.io old oast Road Naples, Ft 5-1-11O 23. -795-0110 (0) 1 i-SC (c) TcuaieMu , Lwrit Wilson,,Associates Nafg,41 ivauIc PS' 1t'*'E 1 LykinsDave From: Aris Dougherty <adougherty1530@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:19 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: KALEA BAY 2 Hello, My name is Aris Dougherty, I reside in Collier County and work in the construction industry. My job will be directly affected in a very negative way if Kalea Bay 2 is halted. I don't understand why anyone wants to hold back Naples' growth and economy. Please consider the hundreds of people that will be affected if this project is halted. Thank you very much for your consideration, Aris Dougherty Naples, FL i LykinsDave From: Linda Crowe <lnda.crowe@progressivewaste.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 1:55 PM To: "BilIMcDaniel@colliergov.net'; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt Subject: Kalea Bay Tower#2 Importance: High To Collier County Commissioners, I am very disappointed there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. As an informed resident of Southwest Florida and who is heavily involved in the construction and real estate industry, it's unfortunate to hear of opposition to growth within our community. Not only am a licensed Real Estate Agent, I also am fortunate enough to be employed by Waste Connections, who provides hauling and disposal services on construction sites. Kalea Bay Building#1 has not only provided a significant employment opportunity for construction workers who work and live within our community; but has also benefited Southwest Florida by attracting affluent residents who have purchased condominiums in Tower 1. The benefits this project brings within our community reaches far beyond today. It supports our community for many years down the road by the jobs it creates to operate Kalea Bay and the opportunity it brings for outlying existing businesses as well as future business opportunities. The increase in tax revenue for Collier County should also be an important topic not be overlooked. We want to look for future growth and opportunity in Southwest Florida and opposing the second phase of Kalea Bay does not support our local industry of construction, tourism/snowbirds, and real estate markets. Hundreds of companies and probably an estimated thousand workers would be directly affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. The real estate and construction market has went through some very tough times and to stop the second phase of Kalea Bay would be going backwards. It is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy considering what we have been through. I hope that we can continue to grow as a community and every one of whose who work and live within this community can prosper and enjoy the life Southwest Florida has to offer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Linda Crowe I Territory Manager Waste Connections, Inc. 2289 Bruner Lane, Fort Myers, FL 33912 0: 239-489-1716 I F: 239-489-1652 I C:239-229-5473 Fr r WASTE CONNECTIONS. Cu'tti.t stt':i, Fitrurr 1 LykinsDave From: pureplumbingl4 <pureplumbing14@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:00 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Kalea Bay To the Collier County Commissioners, I have just been informed that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned Naples Resident/Business Owner, whom is heavily involved in the construction industry. I work for C.R. Smith, LLC., which contracts and manages over 50+ subcontractors that employ hundreds of workers in Florida in our contracting alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company, but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates. All the outlying businesses that are affected by the construction as well as the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years. It is encouraging to see and be part of a positive growing economy. Thank you for your time!" Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone 1 LykinsDave From: scott@amssoundandvision.com Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:28 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Cc: chadrsmith@me.com; marc@amssoundandvision.com; gsrichter@aol.com; jessicajudd@crsmithllc.com Subject: Kalea Bay project To the Collier County Commissioners, I am and have been a Naples resident since 1990. I have seen Naples grow from the small town to a larger town with that small town atmosphere. It is where I enjoy to live and therefore where I set up my family and my business. It pains me to hear that there is opposition to projects, specifically the Kalea Bay project. I understand what it is like to have construction go on next door and although it is a little annoying, it will pass and Naples is better for it. It is promising to our community when homes are built. It creates confidence in community, business, and family life! What better way to increase the value and the operation of our county than welcoming those who are willing to invest in its future! I am an owner of a small company that is involved with the Kalea Bay project. We are a small fish in the pond of contractors working on this project. I cannot speak for them, but we have added staff to our company, invested in advertising, business expansion, and showroom enhancements to provide for the potential 600+families that will call Kalea Bay and Naples, Fl their home. I can only make the assumption that the other companies have made similar investments. It takes a lot of people to build a community and even more to staff the location when it is complete. I would ask that you do not make any changes to these employees source of income or provide more stress for companies in the workforce by delaying the project. Our company and our employees families will be directly affected by the decisions you make. I appreciate your time. If you feel the need to reach out to me about my thoughts on this project,feel free to do so. Best Regards, Scott Moore AMS Sound &Vision Owner 1 "ScottRise andH. rise Moore again and again until lambs become lions' 0 Rims isk L 4 v � Sena Systems Oesicy -AMS sand 8 Wre�rai www- . ,, Helping to transform lives by reducing your waistline and thickening your wallet!What excites you?!Change your dreams into goals! TRUSTWORTHY LOYAL HELPFUL FRIET IDLY COURTEOUS KIND ...--" words to live by :f "�t'Y',o. OBEDIENT CHEERFUL THRIFTY BRAE CLENI REVERENT n ,A _ Scoutmaster-uuV tcop243naplas COM* F ��¢,� Associate Advisor-OA HT Chapter,Osceola Lodge yq ,;-, t J Scoutmaster-Wood Badge S4-88-15-1 iter 40 I 2 1 LykinsDave From: John Wilkinson <John@sunmasterinc.com> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:10 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay To whom it may concern, I am a business owner that employs approx. 50 people Our company is heavily reliant on the construction industry for our living. Projects like Kalea Bay are the lifeblood of our revenue. So when we hear about a project such as Kalea Bay it allows us to more confidently invest in other areas of our economy as consumers. I have lived my whole life (48 years) in Naples so I do understand the idea of pushback against new developments such as this. But typically it doesn't come from natives, it comes from folks that took advantage moving into past developments that some may have been opposed to when they were going in. It makes me shake my head when I think about the "close the door behind me" mentality that happens. As I understand it the Kalea Bay development of 5 condo buildings has already been cleared but there are those who are trying to have it stopped. I sincerely hope you all take into consideration the trickle down effect that will happen if you stop the movement forward of this project.We are a small company but at least 1/3 of my people are currently involved with the workings of this project.Their jobs may not exist without it. When I go to jobsite meetings I see hundreds of people being employed on this site that again would be unemployed if it is shut down.Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please make the right choice for us. Sincerely, John Wilkinson President Sunmaster of Naples 900 Industrial Blvd Naples, FL 34104 239-261-3581 ofc. 239-261-7499 fax. 239-253-4773 cell. www.sunmasterinc.com 1 LykinsDave From: Kevin Jensen <kevin@jensenunderground.com> Sent: Sunday, July 2, 2017 2:19 PM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.neT'; 'PennyTaylor@colliergov.net; 'BurtSaunders@colliergov.net; 'AndySolis@colliergov.net'; 'DonnaFiala@colliergov.net' Subject: Kalea Bay Buildings#2,3,4,5 Dear Collier County Commissioners, I understand that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned business owner who is heavily involved in the Kalea Bay project.This project has been on our books for over a year and in our projection of work for our employees. If this project were to be cancelled it would put a hardship on Jensen Underground Utilities, therefore possibly causing layoffs within our company. We currently employ 95 wonderful people who have families. Not only do we provide a pay check to our employees,we also provide 100% health insurance coverage. Many of the employees purchase health insurance for their families through their hard work a pay checks that they have earned. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Jensen Underground Utilities is very involved in both our communities and by providing quality opportunities, as well as teaching, coaching, training, and furthering developing people's skills. Our industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank You For Your Consideration, Kevin Jensen JENSEN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, INC. 5585 Taylor Rd. Naples, FL 34109 239-597-0060 Ext. 5 239-597-0061—Fax 239-825-1638—Cell Email: Kevin(a@jensenunderground.com Website: www.jensenunderground.com LykinsDave From: Arturo Guido <aguido@legnobastone.com> Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 10:53 AM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay "To the Collier County Commissioners, "To the Collier County Commissioners, It has recently been brought to our attention that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned local Naples, Florida businessman who owns and operates a five-generation small business headquartered in Naples, Florida.We are extremely involved in the construction industry as we are a small sub-contractor that works directly for C.R. Smith. We are a boutiques manufacturing company with approximately 50 employees directly linked to the Kalea Bay project. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. The Kalea Bay project is a significant element to our business and crucial to the employees that are directly employed because of the Kalea Bay project. No to mention the monetary impact it will also have on all their families. Our company and our employees will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. It would be shameful to post pone the progress of this already approved project and negatively impact tens of thousands of families for the sake of a few. Thank you for your time!" Please consider the environment when printing this email.As a company deeply invested in wood,we appreciate your efforts to maintain a world with healthy forests and prudent environmental stewardship.Thank you! Legno Bastone Wide(PlankEfooring "Custom Designed Furniture for'Your Floor" 2684 yforsesfioe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 (0)239-206-1898 oQegrao g3asione WIDE PLANK FLOORING Disclaimer Notice The E-Mail and the information contained in it and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged.If you received this email in error please notify us immediately.You are not authorized to,and must not disclose,copy,distribute or retain this E-Mail or any part of it. We have taken precautions to lower the risk of transmitting software viruses,but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on this message and any attachment to it.Neither Legno Bastone nor the sender can accept liability or responsibility for any damage or any loss whatsoever caused by the transmission of any virus. All statements are made WITHOUT PREJUDICE and all offers are made SUBJECT TO CONTRACT within 45 days of quote. 1 LykinsDave From: Brian Dollard <briandollardrce@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 1:13 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Project To the Collier County Commissioners, It has been brought to my attention there is opposition to the development of the Kalea Bay Project by a few surrounding neighbors. Let me start by saying I am a 41 year Resident of Naples, I have been in the construction business for 38 years. I have seen all the changes from Ft. Myers to Marco Island.The construction industry here is 2nd to none for quality of job and the tradesman that build them. We are a vital part of our communities. From purchasing our own properties and creating commerce with other businesses and industries.Also by creating a better tax base for our State and local Government. I currently employ roughly 50 tradesman for our company. Local men and women who have families to provide and support.The Kalea bay Project is vital to my family and my employees families to live a quality life here in Southwest Florida. In this situation with the opposition opinion, it's a shame that a few who have their dwelling in the this location are opposed to those who would like a dwelling in the same location. (this makes no sense).The Kalea Bay project is the most beautiful thought out resort style community that I have been involved with and the privilege to work on. The construction Industry has been in some tough times as of late,just the past year or so we have been coming out of a serious slow down due to the financial crisis. All the people involved are starting to live a better life and contribute to the community in a more vigor way. If this project was delayed or stopped because of the few who only have their own interest in mind and not the greater good of the community it would be another hardship on the construction industry and the people involved. My company and its employees would certainly feel hardship in their lives. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Best regards to all of you. Brian Brian Dollard briandollardrce@gmail.com RCE Contractors, Inc 3884 Progress Ave Naples, FL 34104 239-643-5758-Office 239-825-1532- Cell 239-643-6772-Fax CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is only for the person(s) named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail. 1 RECEIVED JUL 0 3 2017 To: CcR-114 N,i `�iO�1�72�73 •' I��G�1 �) C OFFICES OF COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS From: Donna Reed Caron Date: July 2, 2017 District 1 District 2 Re: Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and PUD District 3 N District 4 District 5 In a thinly veiled attempt to justify actions antithetical to good planning, staff issued a memorandum dated April 28, 2017 trying to explain the application of development standards for the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. The staff approval letter spends a great deal of time trying to clarify their actions and quoting the "clear language" of Florida Statutes. Critical to the discussion currently being brought forward by citizens is that staff is not following the Settlement Agreement and all of it's component parts in the reviewing process. The following is attempt to detail submitted changes in both clear language and unambiguous facts. Building One is 50 feet wider than shown on the original SDPs. The apparent intent is to make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of another whole building to the plan and further exacerbating the building separation issue. Clear and unambiguous. The developer has added twelve guest suites as accessory units. However, the PUD lists guest suites and cabanas as permitted uses and they are to be counted as part of the total number of residential units: 590. Four 20 story buildings each with 120 units equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Plus twelve guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So as of this date, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of units allowed. Clear and unambiguous. Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top structures such as the pool, community meeting room, and fitness center. According to the PUD, building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the upper most finished ceiling elevation of the roof structure. Also County Land Development Code staff and Zoning & Land Development staff issued an official clarification on the issue of roof-top accessory structures: SC 2004-05, "... the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased height, and refers to unenclosed. unroofed, and un-air conditioned space for recreational use." Clear and unambiguous. A housing unit (a habitable structure) has been added to the garage level, conflicting further with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. Clear and unambiguous. The plans that exist at the County are inconsistent with those submitted to South Florida Water Management - - - preventing any factual analysis to be conducted. For example the SFWMD plans show the addition of two four-plex units, further exceeding the allowed unit count. Nothing clear or unambiguous about this. Building separations are less than code minimums of 1/2 the sum of the building heights, and less than the already reduced and adjusted separations (as per PUD footnote #3) shown on the SDPs attached to the PUD and Settlement Agreement. To quote from the CCPC review that was accepted and approved by Board action, "However, as a result of language in the PUD, the CCPC recommends reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. As an alternative to the reduction in separation, greater distances could be provided by moving alternating towers closer to Vanderbilt Drive." Those separations are as follows: building 1 to 2, 153 feet; building 2 to 3, 126 feet; building 3 to 4, 127 feet; building 4 to 5, 341 feet. The Settlement Agreement, PUD, Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission, and three SDPs reviewed and approved by staff were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 22, 2008. This action was taken in total as part of the Summary Agenda. Again, The Board approved all documents as presented without objection from the County Attorney, County Manager, county staff, the petitioner, the petitioners agent or citizens. Clear and unambiguous. Staff cites several examples of supposed historical application of the administrative reduction of building separations. However, only one of the examples represents a high rise tower project and it is a side yard set back not a building separation situation. In this instance, staffs action was understandable since the Waterpark Place building is not next to another high rise but rather a four lane tree lined parking area leading to a tram to Pelican Bay beach. There are no past projects analogous to the Cocohatchee/Kalea Bay project. Clear and unambiguous. Besides the clear and unambiguous language of Florida statutes being an important tenet, ignoring any portion of an ordinance or law or reducing the language to an absurdity is equally important. Staffs interpretation that there is no limit to reducing building separations because of clauses such as `footnote #3', is not a credible interpretation. Additionally, staff cannot ignore the fact that the CCPC recommendation was included with the PUD, Settlement Agreement and Bald Eagle Management Plan on the Summary Agenda and was approved by The Board on April 22, 2008. The citizens of Collier County harbor serious concerns that must be addressed in a timely fashion. Upholding the Settlement in it's entirety is not only reasonable and proper, but critical to the community's continued trust in the rule of law, our ordinances, the sanctity of contracts and settlements, and of course to the integrity of and respect for our system of county governance and the people elected and appointed to assure equal treatment for all. Thank you. Donna Reed Caron 790 Wiggins Bay Drive • Naples, FL. 34110 h' 239-514-2780 239-280-6857 My name is Diane Rupnow and I live in the Glen Eden Community. In 2000 the Cocohatchee Bay PUD was approved. That PUD contained a development standards chart and footnote that our attorney attached to his February 7th letter to YOU and I gave to commissioners again last Tuesday. Carl Stenddahl just read the footnote a few minutes ago. What was NOT in the PUD was an explanation of how that footnote could and would be interpreted by County staff. It appears that the County is misinterpreting the footnote to allow this developer to get away with drastically reducing separation between buildings. At the February 25, 2008 meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, Commissioner Caron said, "It absolutely defies credulity on the part of both staff and the petitioner that that asterisk in the development standards table means that 251 -foot buildings can essentially be built with zero lot lines." My sentiments exactly! Question: Are ALL developers privy to this slight of hand to get their buildings closer together or is this interpretation of this footnote reserved for those with special privilege? IF this footnote has been used in Collier County at least once before so a precedent IS in place, then I think the question becomes, were good planning standards used then to arrive at that decision? This footnote caused big controversy at the January 11 , 2008 Planning Commission meeting where several commissioners argued that this was na GOOD PLANNING. Our County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow referred to its interpretation as absurd and said, "The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time." Regarding the inclusion of the chart and footnote on the PUD approved in 2000, I have this to say. . . If the Planning Commissioner with a degree in Planning and Architecture has to get out a scale to determine that the building separations in the drawings did not meet the minimum required j i� rr I n s W 0 N �'" V 0 c .f V 0 <u~m i CD E NC "S m v) (Dy < C 'm cu D 03 N o Q m .- . D q Q, (D 6 0 a .Z C m /� N < rt 'r1 a Q A C--- Ifit . ......, m CC: n c , a D. N CO m o N d nN .._A_._.c -: O W N '$y O . ( :-- . . O O A N J 3 r 0 m v a II 6 d O m cr A \�6 /j� 0, (/ v .1 A r w O v o N 0. m w Q ( P m A O , , E 0 , ...„ , , , . r (3 . 1 , ----) 0 , , r O J iS it t A O m .- w -.Ztli W R \ y\ »4 » tu * : , § . \ % b o27H.4. o \ 0 0 \ � . / ���>/� 0 k R f .. . � u,) \ \ _, .,, g \ _ / , , } \ ift : } . f \ E ( / : ^ �\ HI » ( .) < 2} co0 ' Z z } } . \ ; # C--- ƒ § ) ® \ F____, \ /� L § . ° \« } § ~� > S ,„ .. D , ____ , \ § x \ \ / ...,•,.., ...„.„. 1, ..8 \ it- ` ` \ I Additional Facts For Commissioners Mark Strain, chair of the Planning Commission met with us and said he would research our concerns and find answers to our questions. Then 2 days later he informed us that he could have no further involvement in this matter because it might become a conflict of interest for him down the road and yet he continued to take actions regarding this matter by having breakfast with Commissioner McDaniel the Friday BEFORE we were scheduled to meet with that Commissioner. Seems he told Commissioner McDaniel that there had been a precedent set for County staff's interpretation of that footnote accompanying the building standards chart in the PUD and so the Kalea Bay project was a done deal. On March 30, 2017, we asked for public records that would document the precedent disclosed to Commissioner McDaniel as well as any other instances in Collier County in which the footnote accompanying the building standards chart had been interpreted to mean that building separation could be infinitely administratively reduced by County "staff" if skewed buildings had common architectural theme. We have received no public records yet. Does County "staff" have autonomous authority and unlimited discretion to interpret a footnote accompanying the standards chart to mean that this developer does not have to abide by the formula for determining minimum building separation as long as the buildings have common architectural theme and are skewed? Just so you know, plans the developer submitted to the SFWMD do not match the plans which the County sent us when awe sked for the most current Golf Course plans. Shouldn't plans submitted to the County and SFWMD match exactly in reference to land usage? Paragraph 15 of the Settlement Agreement states that "Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorney's fees or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord. No. 200-88 . . . . Does Paragraph 15 mean that the developer can't sue the County? Why should we have to spend over $2,000 to file an Administrative Appeal to get the Commissioners to review something they should be reviewing since they are bound to uphold the terms of the Settlement Agreement? Why should we spend $925 in notification fees to notify ourselves? Why should we have to file an Administrative Appeal and put ourselves in judicial jeopardy when our purpose is to provide County Commissioners with information they should have received from their own staff? If the County can't be sued by this developer, perhaps the County should make decisions that reign in this developer's greed, protect our Naples "sense of place" and uphold the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Paragraph 25 states, "In this respect, the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release. That Case No. shows that it is still pending. 9 years later. According to the Bert Harris Statute 70, both the County and the developer should have done that so that the 20th Judicial Count could protect the public interest. We'd like to see the public interest protected. The terms of the Settlement Agreement have not been upheld and it is up to the Collier County Commissioners to uphold them. How can you do that if you are not informed by County staff? The Commissioners were circumvented in 2008 when they were not provided with clear information about the controversy involving the interpretation of the footnote. They are still being circumvented and deprived of information regarding the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. This is not the first time that these developers have changed plans in their favor. We, the citizens, will suffer the consequences and experience the ruination of our beautiful view—forever. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 BiIIMcDaniel@colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net McDaniel, Taylor, Saunder, Fiala, Solis Dear Collier County Commissioners: As a long-time Naples business owner, I am concerned that the opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay, should it be successful, may adversely affect the Southwest Florida economy and the Collier County tax base. Projects such as this generate significant tax revenue for our county and at the same time require little in government services. That's a win-win for government. It will also provide hundreds of jobs to an industry that is coming off years of stagnation. Commissioners, I urge you to support the Kalea Bay development project and allow our free market to work as it is intended and over the objections of the not- in-my-backyard opposition. Sincerely, Renee Gaddis Renee Gaddis Interiors 9915 Tamiami Trail N #1 Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 431-8352 LykinsDave From: Renee Gaddis <renee@reneegaddis.com> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 1:16 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Fwd: Kalea Bay PUD Attachments: renee letter July 6 2017.pdf Renee Gaddis Principal Designer RENEE GADDIS INTERIQRS t.239.431.8352 m. 239.848.5794 a. 9915 Tamiami Trail N, Suite 1 Naples, FL 34108 renee@reneegaddis.com www.reneegaddis.com r Begin forwarded message: From: Renee Gaddis <renee@reneegaddis.com> Subject: Kalea Bay PUD Date: July 6, 2017 at 1:14:27 PM EDT To: Bi11McDaniel@colliergov.net, PennyTaylor@colliergov.net, BurtSaunders@colliergov.n, DonnaFiala@colliergov.net, Andysolis@colliergov.net 1 Renee Gaddis Principal Designer RENEE GADDIS INTERIORS ! t. 239.431.8352 I m.239.848.5794 a. 9915 Tamiami Trail N, Suite 1 I Naples, FL 34108 renee@reneegaddis.com www.reneegaddis.com t 3 i i 4 3 7 I I z I I i I I 1 I i 2 1 1 LykinsDave From: Daniel Fusco <twcfusco@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2017 11:50 AM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay opposition Attachments: imagel jpeg; ATT00001.txt Hello, Just a quick note in regards to the petition against phase 2 of Kalea Bay. I am the owner/operator of Woodworkers Cabinet of Naples, Inc and we work closely with CR Smith and his team to manufacture custom cabinetry and millwork for his clients. We have grown our company to over 30 employees and we primarily service CR Smith and the Kalea Bay project.We have recently purchased a second location down the street from our current shop on Taylor Rd.to enable us to keep up with the needs of the Kalea project and we are extremely excited for the remaining phases of this development. Please consider the impact on the families who are counting on this project for years to come and will need this to help pay for their kids college. (I have 5 of them!) Thank you and we appreciate our beautiful town and all the opportunities it offers to the trades people! Sincerely, Daniel Fusco 1 LykinsDave From: Bret Groos <Bret.Groos@communityelectricfl.com> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 10:02 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Good morning, I am reaching out to you all today to express my support for the Kalea Bay project, much like the hundreds of people that have purchased units in the first two buildings we are all very proud of this community. We have been operating in collier county for 45 years and are a strong supporter of this place we call home.We understand that from time to time there is opposition to growth, it's funny how most of it is from people who have moved here and know think no one else should. I am sure you all deal with this very often.That being said,the stalling of this project is starting to have a financial impact on many of the local subcontractors,vendors and suppliers that are involved in the project, all of these businesses supply thousands of jobs in Collier County and have made commitments to the project team to reserve man power and re-sources for the project, so from the owners to the workers there is concern of the starting date of phase 2. Thank you for your attention, hopefully this can be rectified soon. II COMMUNIT�Yr.ELECTRIC AaOFROLLIER, INC. votr sdnu 1r Bret Russell Groos President Office: 239-262-3438 Fax: 239-262-6943 Mobile: 239-253-0807 Bret.Groos@communityelectricfl.com 1 LykinsDave From: Ings Lodge <inga@kaleabay.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 3:15 PM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.neT;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: Kalea Bay To Collier County Commissioners: It is with great disappointment that I have heard there is to be a hearing on the future status of Kalea Bay. I am currently the Broker at the sales office at Kalea. We have had to deal with the harassment of many names on this list. They enter the sales office and complain we have illegally started building,they loudly complain we don't have permits etc. They do this in front of customers. Diane Rupnow even started a web page that we had our legal department shut down. Out of the 120 condo's in Tower 100, 60% are new buyers to Naples. They have the same dream as everyone else that would like to make Naples home. They have had plenty of opportunities to purchase in other existing high rises and chose to wait for Kalea Bay. There is nothing that says financial stability in Collier County then starting a high rise community. The last high-rise to be completed was Moraya Bay in 2009. Our new buyers are majority cash buyers paying an average of$1,800,000 to live at Kalea. Naples is poised to have a 4.9% increase in Economic Growth in the next year. How does that happen if a few people can dictate what can and can't be built? It seems that the citizens have more power than the Collier County Commissioners. The Commissioners that we vote for. 80% of our new residents at Kalea Bay are not homestead, that means these new homeowners will pay the highest property tax. That will be over $2,160,000 in property tax paid a year just on Tower 100! Of the list of 93 names presented for the appeal are you aware that 29% of the people on the list are not full- time residents? They can not vote for the County Commissioners, but they are allowed to dictate whether 300 full-time residents continue to work in North Naples. We are not just building the Kalea Bay community, we are building FOR THE COMMUNITY, for those people that work and live in North Naples. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Warm Regards, INGA W. LODGE BROKER/VP SALES & MARKETING 13910 Old Coast Rd Naples, FL. 34110 (o) 239.793.0110 (c)239.560.1171 Wilson&Associates Exclusive listing agent KALEA PAVESE KATHERINE R.ENGLISH Partner Direct dial:(239)336-6249 LJI\L\I\IT Email:KatherineEnelishnpaveselaw.com 1833 Hendry Street,Fort Myers, Florida 33901 1 P.O. Box 1507, Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1507 1(239) 334-2195 Fax(239) 332-2243 July 7,2017 Board of County Commissioners Mr. Matthew McLean Collier County,Florida Engineering Services- 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Growth Management Division Naples, FL 34112 Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Collier County Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112-5749 Naples,FL 34112-5746 Re: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Administrative Appeal by Judith S. Palay, et al. Kalea Bay Phases 2-6 PL20160002242 Ladies and Gentlemen: Our firm represents Lodge/Abbott Associates, LLC and Lodge/Abbott Investments Associates,LLC. (collectively,"Lodge/Abbott"),the owners of Cocohatchee Bay PUD.We are co-counsel with Margaret Cooper, Esquire,of Jones Foster Johnston&Stubbs who handled the earlier litigation resulting in the 2008 Settlement Agreement regarding this project. I will be appearing at the appeal hearing on July 11, 2017 on behalf of Lodge/Abbott.Also appearing for Lodge/Abbott will be Karen Bishop of PMS Inc.of Naples,Inc.Ms.Bishop is the project entitlement facilitator. This appeal arises from a challenge to Lodge/Abbott's request for an amendment to a previously issued site development plan(SDP Amendment)for the project authorizing Buildings 2,3 and 5. The original 2008 SDP for which an amendment is sought was approved by staff in the regular course of business. The Appellants make much of the fact that the County and the land owner entered into the Settlement Agreement resolving a dispute over the appropriate approach to a bald eagle management plan for the project. The Settlement Agreement and its provisions are not relevant to the appeal challenging the present amendment to the SDP. The SDP Amendment subject to this appeal is limited in scope and includes only issues normally addressed by staff in the regular course of business. 4632 VINCENNES BOULEVARD,SUITE 101 4524 GUN CLUB ROAD,SUITE 203 CAPE CORAL,FLORIDA 33904 WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33415 (239)542-3148 (561)471-1366 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 2 The purpose of this letter is as follows: To request intervenor and party status for the project owner,Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC.,identified as the owner for the application to the amendment of AR-5284, Phases 2-6. To provide you with historical context of the Cocohatchee PUD and 2008 Settlement Agreement relative to the present SDP Amendment that is the subject of this appeal. To request determination of the standing of the Appellants to take an appeal in the first place. To address the scope of the appeal and identify the limited issues which can be heard in this appeal. To address the authority vested in staff and the standard of review of the Board on an appeal. To address the substantive arguments raised by Appellants. Intervenor/Party Status Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC. is the project owner and holder of the amended site development plan approval(SDP)for Buildings 2,3 and 5,from which this appeal arises.The appeal is a challenge to the decision of County staff approving the requested amendment; however, the appeal directly affects Lodge/Abbott's authorized plans for the phases of the project specifically approved by this SDP Amendment. Lodge/Abbott is an interested and affected party with vested development rights and it should be given party intervenor status and, be allowed to present evidence and argument and cross examine other parties' witnesses. We request confirmation of the same. Historical Overviews of the PUD and the 2008 Settlement PUD History. Collier County Ordinance No. 2000-88 was passed December 12, 2000. It approved a planned unit development known as the "Cocohatchee Bay PUD" (the "Subject Property" or "Project"). Attached to the Ordinance was the original PUD document. Attached to the PUD document was a Bald Eagle Management Plan to address bald eagles nesting in an extremely degraded pine tree on a portion of the property that was near the planned residential development. The development committed to provide all required state and federal permits as a requirement of development. The PUD Ordinance authorized 590 residential units in five residential towers and multi-family homes located on a parcel west of the golf course.The ratified PUD constituted a substantial"down zoning"from the prior zoning substantially reducing the number of units and significantly reducing the traffic impacts associates 1 therewith. In addition to the immediately realized reduction of density,there was substantial increase of 1 This historical overview comes from Lodge/Abbott's Petition for Certiorari and Appendix.The Petition and Appendix is submitted separately as part of the record in this Appeal.The Petition contains more details as to the facts.This letter is a brief overview. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 3 neighborhood open space/conservation areas that would not be otherwise attainable. It was the increase in preservation/open space which garnished the approval of criteria noted in the PUD specifically utilizing the more desirable clustered design type development.By encouraging site design that located most of the units in the five towers, rather than single family or low density multi-family homes, the end result was more open space, golf course, and preservation areas which now constitute approximately 90% of the 532 acres in the property. The project's preservation commitment is extraordinary. The project's preserve areas total 431.37 acres, including uplands, wetlands and submerged lands. The preservation provided by the project west of Vanderbilt Drive completes the connection for a wetland/waterway preservation area that stretches from Bonita Beach Road to Bluebill Avenue and connects to the State owned lands along the coast. Initial Reliance of Lodge/Abbott. The original applicant for the PUD Ordinance was a contract purchaser,Vanderbilt Partners II,Ltd. Lodge/Abbott later bought Vanderbilt Partners' contract in reliance on passage of the PUD at a purchase price in excess of$32 million was set in reliance upon the passage of the PUD. Lodge/Abbott has also invested substantial time and money toward active development. Also,Collier County required Lodge/Abbott to provide monies ($3,000,000.) for improvements to the bridge, dedicate easements,and provide rights of way on Vanderbilt Drive. Right-of-way was also provided for Wiggins Pass Road as a condition of the PUD. PUD Requirement for a Bald Eagle Management Plan. At the time of PUD approval,a pair of bald eagles had nested in a dead slash pine tree located on the westerly portion of the Subject Property. The LDC and GMP required a Bald Eagle Management Plan which had to comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the USFWS and FFWCC. Collier County GMP and LDC on Species Protection—Deference to State and Federal Permitting. Collier County's GMP(addressing protected species)called for deference to state and federal agency guidelines and their decisions. County staff had no expertise in such matters.The County policies referred to the standards contained in the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and the USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. For bald eagles, the Habitat Management Guidelines called for protective zones around the nest and restricted development activities during the nesting season. In Collier County once there has been a specific ruling by the USFWS and FFWCC,subparagraph(3)of GMP Policy 7.1.2.became the operative standard and deference to the specific ruling is mandated. Similarly,the County Land Development Code§3.04.02(2005),mandated the owner use the guidelines found in the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle. The Code repeated the GMP deference to the specific rulings of the state and federal agencies on individual properties, on a case-by-case basis. There was never a proposal to harm the eagles or even to cut down the nest tree. SDP Application. After getting state and federal approvals,Lodge/Abbott submitted site development plans("SDP")for the clubhouse and residential dwelling units to Collier County. The SDP application called for modifications to the site plan and moving of units from the golf course to the tower buildings. Also, the PUD document had a setback requirement between principal structures,calling for half of the sum of the height Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7, 2017 Page 4 of the structures. It also provided for staff approval(administratively)for reduced set back between clustered principal structures with a common architectural theme.See Section 3.5 of the original PUD. The new SDP proposed to reduce setbacks between principal structures.The PUD document spells out that the original Master Plan was conceptual only and amendments could be made according to the LDC. The LDC provides for staff approval for such changes. County Response to SDP Submittal. In response to the SDP submittals, Collier County issued a comment letter asserting that the Bald Eagle Management Plan required review by both the EAC and the Planning Commission, as well as final approval by the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC"). Lodge/Abbott was told to file a rezoning petition to amend the PUD Ordinance in order to amend the Bald Eagle Management Plan. The County never took the position that SDP amendments for the project required BCC approval. PUD Amendment Application. Under protest, Lodge Abbott submitted an application for a PUD amendment to modify the Bald Eagle Management Plan. BCC Limited Review to Eagle Plan Only. On September 21, 2004, the BCC voted that the PUD amendment was a limited review—limited solely to the Bald Eagle Management Plan("BEMP"). No other aspect of the PUD was considered. Therefore, density, setbacks, height, etc., were not reconsidered. The County recognized that any changes to these items were administrative in nature and for staff review only. Public Hearing-Vote on BEMP. The BCC voted to deny the application by vote of 4 to 1. The vote of the BCC was limited only to the consideration of the Bald Eagle Management Plan.The denial was based solely on the BCC's conclusion that the County could impose tougher standards than the FFWCC and USFWS and could protect a single pair of eagles rather than the approach mandated by FFWCC and USFWS. The County never took the position during this process that site development plan modifications required public hearings and BCC approval. The Litigation. In response to the decision denying the Bald Eagle Management Plan,Lodge/Abbott filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Circuit Court challenging the BCC's decision and a Bert Harris damage claim for the diminution in value of its property should the court determine that the County had the legal authority to prohibit all development to protect a single pair of eagles. The 2008 Settlement.In 2008,the County and Lodge/Abbott entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement") to resolve the litigation. Aside from the additional monies paid by Lodge/Abbott for County roadway improvements, there are several relevant aspects to the Settlement Agreement to bear in mind: Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 5 The Settlement Agreement approved the PUD amendments to change the location of the units into one R zone and to amend the Master Development Plan. Original PUD R1 zone 480 units 44.0 acres R2 zone 90 units 9.7 acres Golf Course 20 units 170.39 acres 590 units total Amended PUD * R Zone 588 units 53.7 acres Golf Course 2 units 170.39 acres 590 units total *See Amended PUD Paragraph 2.3 and Table I The Settlement Agreement did not address or include approval of the SDP changes calling for the requested reduced setbacks.The Settlement Agreement was,however,contingent upon staffs timely approval of the three SDPs. The County recognized and understood that the review and approval of those three SDPs, including subsequent modifications to those SDPs were considered normal exercises of administrative staff level functions. In other words,approvals of SDPs were not,nor have they ever been matters for the BCC.See paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement.2 Contrary to Appellants' assertion, the Settlement Agreement did not require or otherwise provide for BCC review of future SDP amendments. It only required BCC approval of changes to the Settlement Agreement itself,which relates to the bald eagle management plan,not site development plans.See paragraph 21 of the Settlement Agreement.3 The Settlement Agreement approved the Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan and removed the requirement that any future amendment to the BEMP required County EAC review. See paragraph 6.9.F. How the County has implemented Settlement Agreement. Since 2008 both the County and Lodge/Abbott have implemented the Settlement Agreement exactly as it reads and as they understood it—that SDP review and approval is a staff administrative matter. This is exactly how every other project in Collier 2 3. The settlement shall be contingent upon three site development plans("SDPs")that Lodge has submitted being approved by the County as well as the development standards set forth in the original PUD and may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR 5283,and AR5284. 3 21. This Agreement and Release may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release.This Agreement and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. { Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 6 County is treated under the LDC, whether in PUD zoning or other normal zoning districts. SDP plans are internal to the project and are an administrative matter since the impact externally has been mitigated thru the development criteria established in the approved PUD Ordinance and Collier Land Development Code. Staff review assures that the details comply with the objective PUD standards and the LDC standards. Technical and ordinary discretionary planning matters have been delegated to staff. This is no different than SDP approval by staff for any other zoning districts(whether it be RSF,SMF,Commercial,PUD or otherwise). A public hearing is not required and there was no intent to deviate from that process for the Cocohatchee PUD through the acceptance of the Settlement Agreement. In fact,the following SDP amendments to Cocohatchee Bay have occurred administratively since 2008: Original SDP Phase 1 =AR-5283, June 2008. Subsequent staff approvals: Short Title Description SDP# Approval Date 1 Phase lA Gatehouse, lA 201400013 82 Oct-14 2 Phase 1B Balance of Ph 1 20150000420 Aug-15 3 Water B Water and Sewer public 20150002903 Jan-16 Fire at cottages,trellis, dumpster, 4 SDPI 1 Generator 20160000723 Apr-16 Tennis,pickleball, fire lines club, club entrance,water east club,roof 5 SDPI 2 leaders tower, golf parking,maint 20160002600 Dec-16 parking, island x W/S Record Water and Sewer Record Dwgs 20160002553 6 SDPI Phasing Maint Phasing plan for maint bldg. 20170000649 Feb-17 7 SDPI Misc Revisions Misc "catch-up" revisions 20170001964 Jun-17 Finally,delegation of approval rights to staff for minor changes to the overall development(including the reduction of setbacks for clustered developments with a common architectural theme)is commonplace in Collier County and is not unique to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD.It is called for in the LDC at Section 4.02.04 A. The stated purpose in this code section is to allow internal clustering in an innovative design to accommodate greater open space elsewhere in a planned development.How clustering is achieved is a design feature which is properly reviewed by professional planning staff. The BCC has approved the clustering concept as a policy matter as set forth in the LDC and the details of how to implement that policy are delegated to planning staff Contrary to Appellants' suggestion that the buildings are being crammed onto a small land mass, the total vistas and open space provided by this project are vast(90%of the project)and greatly exceed the code requirements. The impact of the additional reduction in building separation in the SDP Amendment on the existing open space is nonexistent. Further,there is no discernible impact on any perceived external vistas from Vanderbilt Drive at 35 miles an hour or from the north or south of the project. If the buildings were further Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 7 separated,there would be a need to further impact areas previously set aside as preserves to accommodate the development. Standing and Status of Appellants The location of the proposed buildings is significant.They are located as far west into the interior of the property as possible, abutting the westerly wetlands and preserves, to provide the greatest distance from the Vanderbilt Drive right-of-way.The property is bounded on the west by Wiggins State Park and Barefoot Beach County Park and the wetland preserve buffers for those parks. To the east of the project's 159+/- acre golf course parcel is Tarpon Cove PUD. Wiggins Bay PUD,is located south of the golf course parcel and Wiggins Pass Road.To the north of the golf course parcel is Glen Eden,Falling Waters,Bentley Village and Audubon. To the south of the high-rise parcel on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive are the existing mid- to high-rise projects of Aqua,Pelican Isle Yacht Club, Marina Bay,Anchorage,and the Dunes PUD. To the north of the western parcel is Arbor Trace PUD and Egrets Walk. Most of the Appellants live north of the Cocohatchee PUD.Due to their specific locations within their own development projects,the existing substantial landscaping buffers for those projects provide visual screening so that they are not impacted visually by this project. The building separation modification is internal to the Kalea Bay project and addresses the buildings' physical proximity to each other, not to other developments. Moreover the north to south alignment of the buildings means that changes in the building separation as proposed has no visual impact of the vistas from the property to the north. Internal setbacks anticipated by a clustering site design are truly an internal matter — not a development aspect that burdens any adjoining property owner or neighbor. Pursuant to Section 250-58,an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party may appeal a site development plan. An affected property owner is an owner of property located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is effective. An aggrieved or affected party is a person or group of persons who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth Management Plan,Land Development Code, or Building Code(s). While the alleged adverse interest for an aggrieved or affected party may be shared in common with other members of the community at large,it must exceed the general interest in the community good common to all persons (emphasis added). The Appellants have failed to provide justification for their standing to raise this appeal, either as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party. Prior to hearing the basis of the appeal, as filed, Appellants must establish their standing to bring the appeal either due to proximity to the project or an interest which exceeds the general interests in the community good of all persons. To the extent that one,some or all of the Appellants cannot establish their status as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party,their individual claims should be dismissed for lack of standing. fi Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 8 Scope of Appeal—What Can Be Heard and What Evidence Can be Relied Upon �! The Appellants raise nine issues—some of which have nothing to do with the current SDP approval.See for example Issue 7(Restrictive Covenants),Issue 8 (Invasive Control),and Issue 9(10 Foot Pathway).These should be stricken from the appeal of the SDP approval as irrelevant and untimely. Secondly,Appellants do not delineate between early SDP amendments for which the time to challenge has expired and the current SDP Amendment subject to this appeal. Appellants' challenge to any decision covered under a prior SDP Amendment that was not earlier challenged is untimely and cannot be considered. Third,Appellants have submitted a "record" of exhibits to which objection is made. Most documents referred to are rank hearsay-letters,newspaper articles,etc. The Appellants' "record" should be stricken and any exhibits submitted at hearing should be ruled upon individually as to admissibility. Most importantly,Appellants rely heavily upon a recommendation by the Planning Commission in 2008 on the Settlement Agreement to remove staffs discretion to administratively reduce setbacks in accordance with that permissible for a clustered development.The BCC rejected this suggestion in 2008.This recommendation was not included in the Settlement Agreement nor can be inserted into the Settlement Agreement by the current BCC under the guise of an appeal of the SDP amendment. Standard of Review The BCC's standard of review for an appeal of an SDP is not addressed in the LDC.Such review should be limited to determining whether staff deviated from the requirements of the LDC and PUD language relevant to the reduction building setbacks in issuing the amended SDP approval. In both the Settlement Agreement and the LDC, the planning staff is afforded discretion to approve reduced separation between buildings to facilitate clustered developments.The building separation reductions are clearly part of the design elements internal to a planned project which meets the specific clustering goals and criteria of the LDC.These types of design features are not policy decision matters for the BCC,but rather technical,internal design issues more properly heard by the County's professional planning staff.The discretion to address these kinds of design questions has been delegated to staff by LDC and by the PUD documents.Staff acted within the parameters set forth in both documents in deciding to issue the requested amendment to the SDP. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 9 Substantive Arguments Issue 1. Public Hearing Appellants assert that the Settlement Agreement requires a public hearing and BCC approval before amendment to SDP plans.It does not.In fact,the Settlement Agreement did not call for the BCC to approve the 2008 SDP plans—but only made the Settlement Agreement contingent upon staffs review and approval of the 2008 SDP plans.The Settlement Agreement only modified the PUD Document vis a vis the Eagle Management Plan.Paragraph 21 deals with amending the Settlement Agreement only—not amending future SDPs.The PUD document specifically requires SDP amendments to be reviewed and issued by staff and clearly allows modification to building setbacks to facilitate clustering by staff's administrative action. Issue 2. Building Separation Appellants rely heavily on the Collier County Planning Commission("CCPC") suggestion in 2008 to eliminate the staff's discretion to consider reduced building setbacks to facilitate clustering.This suggestion by the CCPC was not accepted by BCC and is not part of the Settlement Agreement the BCC approved. Contrary to Appellants claims that the buildings are too close,the Collier County LDC specifically sets forth definitions for"cluster"and"cluster development"that provide for closely grouping buildings in order to provide environmental benefits. Indeed, the definitions for those words include the rationale for allowing closely grouping buildings in order to increase open space and reduce impacts to native vegetation and habitat areas while reducing the costs of providing services. 4 Next Appellants argue that staff abused its discretion in approving the reduction of building separation by large percentages and that reductions should be limited to small percentages of the overall building separation requirements. The Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards for the "R" District set forth in Table II of the amended PUD states that the distance between principal structures is 0.5 times the sum of the building heights, subject to Note 3 which states: Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and the walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The plan language of the PUD clearly states that the building separation can be administratively reduced. Further,since the BCC in reviewing and adopting the amended PUD as part of the Settlement 4 LDC Section 1.08.02 Cluster: Concentrating or grouping buildings more closely than in conventional arrangements,locating such buildings on a limited portion of a development site,in order to allow for open space or preservation of natural features. Cluster development:A design technique allowed within residential zoning districts or where residential development is an allowable use.This form of development employs a more compact arrangement of dwelling units by allowing for,or requiring as the case may be,reductions in the standard or typical lot size and yard requirements of the applicable zoning district,in order to: increase common open space;reduce the overall development area;reduce alterations and impacts to natural resources on the site;to preserve additional native vegetation and habitat areas;and,to reduce the cost of providing services,including but not limited to central sewer and water. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 10 Agreement chose not prohibit administrative reductions of building separation nor did it set a limit on administrative discretion to do so. The modification of the building separation by staff is clearly authorized where the walls are not parallel to each other and the language of the amended PUD clearly explains the circumstances which would give rise to that determination(angled,skewed,or offset). Further,clearly the BCC knows how to limit staff discretion for clustering since it adopted limits to building as part of Table 5 of LDC Section 4.02.04. LDC Section 4.02.04 sets forth the design standards for cluster residential design in Subsection(C) Table 5 which clearly limits the reduction of distance between principle structures to no less than 10 feet. However, Subsection F goes on to state that additional reductions may be approved by the Collier County Planning Commission. Clearly,the BCC does limit staff discretion to reducing the building separation to no less than 10 feet. There is no indication in the documents associated with this Project that this limitation applies to the SDP Amendment. In this instance, Lodge/Abbott is entitled to seek administrative approval to reduced building separations pursuant to its amended PUD. Even if the limitation on the reduction of building separation set forth in LDC Section 4.02.04 does apply to the pending SDP Amendment, the building separation reduction authorized in no way approaches the limits set forth in Table 5. Issue 3. Building Widths This is the same argument as Issue 2, but stated in terms of building width rather than building separation. This argument fails for the same reasons set forth above. Issue 4. Guest Suites This issue is not timely raised. Guest suites were approved as part of the original PUD and authorized for construction in earlier SDPs.Guest suites as defined in the LDC and the PUD are not"units"for purposes of calculating density by rule. Guest suites cannot be sold to third parties,but are instead part of the common area amenities for use by all unit owners specifically to accommodate their guest overflow.Further,these units do not include a kitchen which is required for a dwelling units. This issue cannot be addressed again on appeal of approval of an amended SDP for Buildings 2, 3 and 5. gF 1 1 5 Collier LDC Section 1.08.02 Definitions: Dwelling(also called dwelling unit) :Any building,or part thereof,constituting a separate,independent housekeeping establishment for no more than 1 family,and physically separated from any other rooms or housekeeping establishments which may be in the same structure.A dwelling unit contains sleeping facilities,sanitary facilities,and a kitchen. Guest quarters/guest suites:An attached or detached room or suite,which could be used as a temporary sleeping accommodation, which is integrated as part of the principal use of the property and may contain running water as long as it is not configured or of a size that may accommodate a kitchen. 1 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 11 Issue 5. Building Height This is a non-issue. The locating amenities on the roof area of each tower were previously addressed. There is no amenity located on the roof that affects calculation of the building height. The current amenities located on the roof tops are limited to a recreational area that is not enclosed in an air-conditioned space. By code,these amenities are not sufficient to constitute an additional floor for height calculations. Issue 6. Garage Dwelling Unit The proposed building manager's living area in the SDP Amendment is not within the garage,but in a separate building that is part of the common area for the Project. It is an accessory use, not a unit offered separately for sale,to assure housing for on-site management. Staffs approval of the building manager's living area in the separate building as an accessory use has no effect on the calculation of building height for Buildings 2, 3 and 5. The approval is authorized by the PUD provision regarding accessory uses. See Section 3.4.B.3.6 Furthermore,the manager's unit does not count toward density under the applicable LDC regulations and the PUD as an accessory use. Issue 7. Restrictive Covenant This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal. Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to restrictive covenants. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 8. Invasive Control. This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal. Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to invasive control. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 9. Ten Foot Pathway This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal. Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to the ten foot pathway. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. 6 3.4.B.3 Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature to the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Department Director determines to be compatible in the"R"Districts. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 12 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons the appeal filed herein should be denied. Sincerely, PAVESE LAW FIRM B7 AP' atherine R. E4glis MLC/KRE:ebg cc: Ralf Brookes,Esquire Margaret L. Cooper, Esquire Michael Bosi Karen Bishop LykinsDave From: Sandy Smith <SandySmith@Paveselaw.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 2:30 PM To: McLeanMatthew; KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: BosiMichael; ralf@ralfbrookesattorney.com; mcooper@jonesfoster.com; Karen Bishop (karenbishop@pmsnaples.com); Katherine English Subject: Request for Party Intervenor Status.July 7, 2017 Attachments: Request for Party Intervenor Status.July 7 2017.pdf Ms. English requested the attached pdf document be forwarded to you for your information and review. Hard copies will be hand delivered shortly. Please contact us at your convenience if you have any questions or cannot open the attachment. Sandy Smith PAVE Legal Assistant to Katherine R. English 1833 Hendry Street(33901) T A Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, FL 33902 �-"' ' Direct 239.336.6249 Fax 239.332.2243 sandysmith(a,paveselaw.com Visit our website: www.paveselaw.com Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this transmission is legally privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone call to (239) 334-2195 and delete the message. Thank you. This law firm acts as a debt collector. This e-mail may be an attempt to collect a debt. If so, all information obtained will be used for that purpose. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd. 1 LykinsDave From: Fred Schuman <fs@jndmech.com> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 1:07 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Josh Willard (Josh.willard@manhattanconstruction.com); Nate Farnsworth Subject: Re; Petitioned opposition of Kalea Bay Tower 2 permit application Attachments: To Collier County Commissioners.docx Dear sir and madam Please review the attached abbreviated summery documenting J&D Mechanical's historical Kalea Bay man power activity. Thank you in advance for your consideration during the opposition deliberation process. Thanks Fred R Schuman Cell 239.770.2828 Office 239.288.5834 Email link fs@Indmech.com President J&D Mechanical LLC. CMC 1249359 The information contained in this email message, including all attached documents, is intended only for the professional /personal and confidential use of the designated recipients named above and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately and delete it from his or her computer. J&D Mechanical LLC. 5021 Luckett Rd Fort Myers FL 33905 1 To: Collier County Commissioners. From:J&D Mechanical LLC. Re: Petitioned opposition of Kalea Bay Tower 2 permit application. AS the Mechanical Contractor for both Manhattan and CR Smith any opposition to permitting is Extremely Concerning for many reasons but our immediate concern is for our employees and their families. Below is data to illustrate the financial impact of not permitting Tower 2 on our small businesses employees, using Tower 1 as a benchmark given that tower 2 is very similar. Tower 2 activity for MEP trades was anticipated to begin on or about 12/1/17, listed are hours for J&D fulltime Kalea Bay field employees and our fabrication facility employees, whose times is also applied to Kalea activity's as shop, the applied hours stated are from our job costing data from 6/1/16 thru 5/31/17 to provide clear time line of 1 full year of activity for reference clarity. Please note that appropriate pay scale with full benefits including family health insurance applies to all full-time employees. • Over the 12-month time line above we posted 51,085 field applied hours or (25 full time employees) Tower 1. • Over the 12-month time line above we posted 13,637 shop applied hours or(7 full time employees)for pre fabrication, packaging and delivery from our fabrication facility to Tower 1. • Tower 1 alone employed 32 full time employees for referenced duration. Additional activity over the 12-month time line above we posted 21,873 hours, this time was applied to out-building facilities structures or additional(10 full time employees)for same referenced duration. Business office operations staff employed by J&D Mechanical to facilitate pre-construction planning through current activity for approximately 30 months to date, staff includes Management, project coordinator, estimators, cad-draftsmen, clerical and accounting. we have applied 3,500 business staff hours conservatively to date. Going forward activity for J&D Mechanicals service department upon completion of Tower 1 and out building facilities will include Service management, service technicians, dispatch and clerical for warranty repair service, 3 years contractually, 4,000 hours. Additional anticipated activity is preventative maintenance, this will employ minimally 1-2 full time employees initially to preform preventive maintenance tasks and none-warranty service to building 1 and it's 120 residences, common areas and out building facilities. Upon completion of Kalea Bay development the preventative maintenance and service tasks will employ 3-5 full time employees,potentially for the life of the structures. I hope that 1 have provide you with real world insight of how significantly Kalea tower 2 and this first-Class Development in its entirety is in supporting local small business as ours and their working-class families. J&D Mechanical is only 1 of hundreds of businesses this Development will financially impacts directly and/or indirectly today and for many years to come. Thank You Fred Schuman/President J&D Mechanical Nathen Farnsworth/Vice President J&D Mechanical LykinsDave From: Aluminum Glass Solutions <aluminumglasssolutions@centurylink.net> Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 1:36 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay To the Collier County Commissioners, We are a small family owned and locally operated glass &glazing company. We are currently subcontracted by C.R. Smith for the glazing specs at Kalea Bay. We have just learned that there is some opposition to the 2nd phase of Kalea Bay, and naturally we are concerned. An opportunity to participate in such a significant project, not only for our small company, but for so many trades in our community, that have the opportunity to participate, would benefit the whole community as this is a project that would last for many years—creating job opportunities and benefiting our industry. Considering the very hard years the construction industry and Collier County suffered not too long ago, a project of this magnitude is such a positive outlook for companies and their employees. It has truly been a positive experience to be part of this project for our company, as well as others we are sure. On the other hand the tremendous financial hardship for all involved with this project, if halted -would be appalling. Companies such as our own, have prepared themselves- invested in additional insurances, materials and even equipment to fulfill their contract obligations and most importantly provided additional opportunities of employment . Our company, as well as all the others involved and their employees, we are certain, will be immensely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. Thank you for your time and careful considerations. Many Thanks, Juan and Nydia Lopez Aluminum Glass Solutions, Inc. 239-354-1001 office 239-354-1009 fax info@AluminumGlassSolutions.com www.AluminumGlassSolutions.com 1 LykinsDave From: Nancy Farnsworth <nancy@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:38 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Attachments: 20170710151854.pdf Dear Commissioners: Please find attached signatures from 22 of our staff who work construction in Collier County and many who live in the county. Several have worked directly on the Kalea Bay project and are scheduled to work on the upcoming building 2. If the Kalea Bay Project is halted or delayed due to the protesters against this already approved building, we will have to lay people off. Please stand strong against those few part time residents who are against this project. Nana' Nancy P.Farnsworth Vice President Acres&Son Plumbing, Inc. Serca Management, LLC 239-597-5031 239-597-3740 fax 1 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net Bur tSaunders(a.colliergov.net PennyTaylorAcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincer. y, Signature az- Print Name 9--7t IV 7:167/Le_ Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolisQcolliergov.net BurtSaundersCa colliergov.net PennyTaylor(a�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel[a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincere \NY Signature Print Name 5/0 o`l-n 51- l w, Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�colliergov.net PennvTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature Print Name -273I t-4 A J Address i) 1e.s , cA) , 14 34.1,'7 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolisC colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennvTavlor a(�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(cr�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, :`117 41714 Signal e kLV- C-C31— Print Name tepeop (A) Address aatirrisc (;) f'L Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(c�colliergov.net AndySolis a(�colliergov.net BurtSaunders ancolliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDanielCa)colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature [/ / ( ;YheIc: � c <C # (4:3.44 it 'i Print Name ( r6( </$1 $1vCen/ Address ��y/mss Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacollierqov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(c�colliergov.net PennyTaylor(c�col liergov.net BillMcDaniel(&colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, 1-( 1,,‘ Ito Z3,m(r-0..._. Signature Print Name -1q00 k Address �Yl(. al /G //-Y13-V Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaRcolliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders©colliergov.net PennyTaylor c@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, .§4ji a$ /7 (4/e Signature rhoira 10,/e5 Print Name SYd� �7 �ti S1 S 4/ Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala a(�colliergov.net AndySolis(a colliergov.net BurtSaundersCa�colliergov,net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against he opposition who are do not want this project built. inOPlY, AAA4A /441 4 Signat re k0 fAA_S chOt kdab t\\ Print Name 22,E MCLA,v+1 7\\a Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(ccolliergov.net AndySolis ancolliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@ablliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Gc Signat e Print Name aoy 411,e vt r Address 4erie S el `33ai34.. Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�colliergov.net PennyTaylor(c�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signaturen 12. c1 Print Name S)o S - Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala aC�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@,colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sin -ly, All ...._. (),(-\.,} ,6r Sign re Print Name `f/I Aw. ieftvE Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolisAcolliergov.net BurtSaunderscolliergov.net 0(;, PennyTaylorcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel(c�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, � jasesh 0111/411 Signature 771) th-e-W— • Print Name O' 3 0 -X A - / 577 Address �� f Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala aacolliergov.net AndySolisacolliergov.net BurtSaundersacolliergov.net PennyTaylor aacolliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a,colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sin101111r _._._ 46.7 `I• •nature r tic zonirel4S1 Print Name I /0 3b ) �• (y �� Address S r. /L 3/3S Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis a(�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�colliergov.net PennyTaylor(a colliergov.net BillMcDanielCa?colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature r A. C 7 oti,c,Z, Print Name ^� /of t i 1-et'!' c -1 r• Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�col liergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BiIIMcDanieI(i colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, &\A' 440 4 ty110,1( Sit- ik ..41111 �! �e Trisco 4Ad ress Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(cr7colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a)colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Since ir Atfr ure Prin lame .434-3 02.6 ` ,five- .Slr/ Addres Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolis(a colliergov.net BurtSaunders(c�colliergov.net PennyTaylor(7a colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@a,colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Si cerely, u�re +I) Vtl°6\ )Nr1 efit. i6 at Print Name Address 3 GrT3 it Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov.net AndySolis a(�,colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor(ccolliergov.net BillMcDanielAcolliergov.net i RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected i the already •-rmitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be bui 1. Please stand fir against the opposition who are do not want this project built. i i'ej-ely, g 0 / i f i .1k3 t- mature le *(/) \ r 'rint Name Andres;, ail � AtJk . Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor(c�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, // Signature Name , L>✓/ ufc�Zr Print 11L/3 v woisnei75 Lou cip Z Z Address 11/9p) � 5 F 31/Jv3 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySoliscolliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennvTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(c�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sinc ely, Signature 1dro M04, 1v o Print Name I o c)c v\a,t 1-I0 L >n Address j� r Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis(a colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor@a,colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Si cerely,., ' Sig►?.re V 40 0 O—Pie(%Pt. Print Name � //1 5 1 U1w Jl Cf'` 2.0 A dr s Ay CE5. t . `-3 41 / 6 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaCa colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaundersCc�colliergov.net PennyTavlor@colliergov.net BillMcDanielCa7colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature Print Name 27 h 63 ,r+c,,c,Itec &&a Address ODA, til .si,e,,/fs IL,t 31-/3i CONCRETE & MASONRY, INC. July 11, 2017 Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 Re: Kalea Bay Tower Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: This letter comes to you from a concerned contractor that has operated in Naples for over thirty years. It was with great excitement that we prepared for the Kalea Bay project post a recession during which many construction contractors, including Allen Concrete,had to lay off thousands of employees. When we were awarded the concrete portion of the Kalea Bay project,we hired an able workforce to undertake it. We anticipated that the project duration would be approximately seven years. The project consists of five towers, clubhouse facilities, guest cottages, maintenance building, tennis courts and golf course. We are under notice that there is opposition to the completion of the remaining towers. When construction of tower#2 was delayed, we had to lay off several employees and reduce the hours of several others. We have tried to hold-on,but if this project does not move forward or is delayed any more, we will be forced to lay-off more employees and/or cut more hours. These employees are the same ones that fuel our local economy with their spending. Projects such as Kalea Bay attract both seasonal and permanent residents who also contract miscellaneous local trades i.e. air conditioning contractors, painters, Allen Page 1 of 2 6301 SHIRLEY STREET • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 • OFFICE(239)566-1661 •FAX(239)566-8515 101111111111111=ft a, designers, and who patron local restaurants, hair and nail salons,car dealerships and so on. Since Naples is such a cyclical area, it needs sufficient attractive housing to compete with other cities. We have beautiful communities, but not many as grand as Kalea Bay. We hope you take into consideration all of these things and not simply the complaints of a few unit owners as you make your decision. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, cu_k: Chris Allen Cc: Bill McDaniel Penny Taylor Burt Saunders Donna Fiala Andy Solis Allen Page 2 of 2 LykinsDave From: Karen Laureano <KLaureano@allenconcrete.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:26 AM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Cc: Chris Allen; Susie Allen; Katie Wallace Subject: Kalea Bay Project Attachments: Kalea Bay.pdf Gentlemen and ladies: Please see attached letter from Mr.Allen in reference to the Kalea Bay project. Thank you, aileW CONCRETE & MASONRY INC. Karen Laureano 6301 Shirley Street Naples, FL 34109 239.566.1661 Ext. 216 239.254.8515 Fax klaureano@allenconcrete.com www.allenconcrete.com 1 r Ex parte Items - Commissioner Burt Saunders COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Board of Zoning Appeals 8.A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Judith S. Palay and 92 other property owners within the Cocohatchee Bay Neighborhood Communities,filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the administrative approval of building separations, building widths, building dwelling units, and building heights in the Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA-PL20160002242 for Kalea Bay aka Kinsale Condominium Phases II-VI.The subject property is located at the northwest and northeast corners of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South and Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170002165] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings Correspondence Xe-mails 1 'Calls Meetings: Diane Rupnow, Diane Ebert, Karen Bishop Correspondence & Emails: Numerous letters and emails from residents and construction trade groups Advertised Public Hearings 9.A. ***This item has been continued from the June 27, 2017 BCC meeting.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended,the Wolf Creek RPUD,to approve an insubstantial change to the PUD,to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only,and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34,Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 189±acres. [PDI-PL20160000404] (Mike Bosi, Director,Zoning Division) NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM 1 SEE FILE <Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls Meetings: Terri Abrams, Steve Bracci, Bruce Anderson Correspondence & Emails: Numerous emails from attorneys representing project development clients and residents of Black Bear Ridge LykinsDave From: R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:52 AM To: Steve Bracci Cc: SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: Re:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: image001 jpg; image002.png All, If the County had approved the prior owner's conceptual plan, I would have said "approved" and referenced an SDP#. That prior plan included the existing conceptual preserve area that would now be modified by my client's insubstantial change application. The point is that whether the conceptual Preserve is changed or not makes no difference about how many homes can fit on the land, regardless of the existing or modified preserve area. Opponents claim otherwise.They are simply wrong. I do have one correction from the project's engineer.The number of dwelling units on the prior owner's plan was 215. The 254 is the number is the number of remaining unbuilt units approved in the PUD. Thank You, R Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 Telephone: 239-659-4942 direct 239-261-9300 main Facsimile: 239-261-0884 RBAnderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:RBAnderson@napleslaw.com> www.napleslaw.com<http://www.napleslaw.com> On Jul 7, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com»wrote: Dear Board—this is in response to Mr. Anderson's email below. I believe you should ask Mr. Anderson to clarify what he means when he states: "The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong." The impression left by Mr.Anderson is that the prior 254 site plan was approved by the county, and that the new presently pending 215 unit site plan now reduces the approved site plan. Mr. Anderson should clarify whether the county ever approved a 254 site plan, or whether he is instead just referencing a concept plan on a sheet of paper that was never approved. Sincerely, 1 1 Steve Bracci <image002.png> Steven J. Bracci, PA, Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635<tel:%28239%29%20596-2635>; Fax: (239) 431-6045<tel:%28239%29%20431-6045>; email: steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net<mailto:burtsaunders@colliergov.net>; pennytaylor@colliergov.net<mailto:pennytaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net<mailto:WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net»; andysolis@colliergov.net<mailto:andysolis@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net<mailto:DonnaFiala@colliergov.net»; KlatzkowJeff <JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net»; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net<mailto:nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net>; michaelbosi@colliergov.net<mailto:michaelbosi@colliergov.net> Cc: Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com»; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com<mailto:ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com>) <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com<mailto:ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com» Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi,This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED, TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? 2 The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law <image001.jpg> Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com> www.napleslaw.com<http://www.napleslaw.com> This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us (collect) at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination,forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net<mailto:burtsaunders@colliergov.net>; pennytaylor@colliergov.net<mailto:pennytaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net<mailto:WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net»; andysolis@colliergov.net<mailto:andysolis@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net<mailto:DonnaFiala@colliergov.net»; R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com>> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change 3 Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci <image002.png> Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635<tel:%28239%29%20596-2635>; Fax: (239) 431-6045<tel:%28239%29%20431-6045>; email: steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 4 LykinsDave From: R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Steve Bracci; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFY PASSII)OMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTOR E S,4T LAAW 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 1 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbandersonnapleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci • r- N.`\ Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 2 LykinsDave From: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 2:38 PM To: R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Board—this is in response to Mr. Anderson's email below. I believe you should ask Mr.Anderson to clarify what he means when he states: "The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong." The impression left by Mr.Anderson is that the prior 254 site plan was approved by the county, and that the new presently pending 215 unit site plan now reduces the approved site plan. Mr. Anderson should clarify whether the county ever approved a 254 site plan, or whether he is instead just referencing a concept plan on a sheet of paper that was never approved. Sincerely, Steve Bracci Noi+** Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; i andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com>; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED, TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFY PASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAY' 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson(a�napleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 2 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net;pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna<DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson<rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci f : w Nett Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 3 STEVEN J.BRA.CCI, PA A Professional Association Attorney at Law 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102 Naples,Florida 34109 Ph: (239)596-2635 Fax: (239)431-6045 steve@braccilaw.com www.braccilaw.com July 5,2017 VIA E-MAIL jeffklatzkow@,colliergov.net Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Collier County Attorney's Office 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples,Florida 34112 Re: Vanderbilt Reserve—Wolf Creek PUD Insubstantial Change Request Vanderbilt Reserve—SDP Application for 215 unit subdivision per Permit Tracking#PL20160000157 Dear Jeff: On behalf of the Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members, the purpose of this letter is to suggest that Vanderbilt Reserve is improperly seeking a piecemeal"insubstantial change" to the Wolf Creek PUD as part of its overall effort to obtain an SDP for a 215 unit residential subdivision. The SDP application documents are referenced at Permit Tracking #PL20160000157. In order for Vanderbilt Reserve to obtain that SDP,it requires not only a reduction of its preserve area,but also an increase in its residential density. The increase in density requires a"substantial" change to the Wolf Creek PUD pursuant to LDC Sect. 10.02.13.E.1.b,rather than the currently requested insubstantial change. For whatever reason, both staff and the owner/developer are ignoring the fact that the presently requested 215 units far exceeds the density allocated to the Vamderbilt Reserve property pursuant to the PUD. Not only do Vanderbilt Reserve's proposed 215 units exceed its overall allocated density,but the 115 dwelling units(plus 4 partial units)shown on what is known.as the "Mederos"property far exceeds the 80 units that were allocated to the Mederos Parcel pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 2007-46. At last week's hearing on Vanderbilt Reserve's insubstantial change application to amend the Wolf Creek PUD to reduce the preserve area,you correctly advised the Board that the Wolf Creek PUD was "balkanised"'back in 2007. In other words, rather than looking at the PUD's density as a whole,certain parcels were treated by the BCC as sub-parcels and allocated specific unit densities. This includes what is known as the"Mederos"property which, under Ordinance 2007-46, was assigned 80 development units. This same "Mederos"parcel is where the bulk of preserve is situated which the Developer/owner is seeking a reduction. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Page 2 Mr. Yovanovich spoke at the June 27 PUD amendment hearing and gave his recollection of residential density for the Mederos property given his past involvement in that matter back in 2007. Mr. Yovanovich stated: "What I do know is that right now, the way the PUD is written, there is a limitation of density on what was known as the Mederos parcel of 80 units. So as long as they don't build more than 80 units pursuant to this change in area that they're making available to themselves, we don't have a dispute. If they want to put more than 80 units on that,we do think it's inconsistent with the PUD...." The fact is, Vanderbilt Reserve does want to put more than 80 units on the Mederos property, as evidenced by its pending SDP application showing 115 units (plus 4 partial units) on that parcel. Given your statement to the Board acknowledging "balkanized" density within the Wolf Creek PUD, and Mr. Yovanovich's accurate acknowledgment that there is an 80 unit density maximum on the Mederos property, it would seem that the presently pending insubstantial change application to the Wolf Creek PUD is procedurally improper. We believe that the owner's PUD application should have been for a "substantial" change to the PUD under LDC Sect. 10.02.13.E.1.b. This would then properly allow the Board of County Commissioners to review this matter in its entirety, rather than reviewing it piecemeal and thus denying the Commissioners an opportunity to see the complete picture that the preserve is being reduced to accommodate a density increase. It is apparent that staff has not provided the Commissioners with any information regarding the pending 215-unit Vanderbilt Preserve SDP application. This approach does not best serve Collier County and its citizens. Looking beyond just the four corners of the "Mederos" property, the remainder of Vanderbilt Reserve is situated on what is known as "Parcel 3b,"which by our calculations has a maximum density of 24 dwelling units (or in any event, not more than 48 dwelling units based on 4 units per acre), capping the total allowed units within Vanderbilt Reserve at 104 units (or in any event, not more than 128 units). This is far less than the 215 units requested by Vanderbilt Reserve under its presently pending SDP application. For an understanding of the history of density on both "Parcel 3b," as well as the "Mederos" property, see the timeline and supporting documents attached hereto. We believe that the failure to properly address the need for increased density as part of the PUD amendment resulted in the concern and confusion justifiably expressed by certain board members at the June 27 meeting. This concern and confusion will likely continue until such time as the developer/owner's PUD amendment application properly addresses both the preserve reduction and the density issue. It would seem that at the July 11 meeting, the interests of the Board and the public would be best served by tabling the PUD insubstantial change request until such time as the developer/owner follows the proper PUD substantial change amendment process. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Page 3 Please feel free to contact me if you wish to further discuss this matter. Sincerely, STEVEN J. BRACCI,PA Steven J. Bracci, Esq. cc: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Bruce Anderson, Esq. Client fgg fi L NVld 30VNIVNO ! ^__ _, _ O O I'� I $ tfY'fE V309 Dm.3.1.1ris4 ONIQVii`J'9NIAVdd -_— _ 8 et (V ('i; O Flip i .11:102131N303A11flO3X3'M'N 99 1 _ S + � N Of ill'1118a3oNVA 1380S 3Aa3S3a ,..t., __ —(f $ 3 P o 7- r Z - co1:g!ti1:I ,.. 1118213aNdA—� f .... ":' ��;! I I j I,I I�I .t] t6 .. . , «,: I i 1' eli W z d ti 9 Y Yw4Y 9 »9Y ! I 7 y F q 'r la O { H_III 9 8!S 1 7@ 9 9 g s a I f n 1p 0 ", ,,, Jaad! :1- 1 € 1, 5 3 IIIIUti111111 mi t1111111111ttt1111i1111mim 1 ItImwm IsertmiNl S l; i It P 1.; a k Q 1$1 - t lmmilllit1111llttt11111111I1111mommllll �III�l�man 1l�� •t 1 �_ a O. 1 1 1 1 1 m;t 3 1 1I ' Q a ; ; iiII .I 'IIII ,III, 11II AlI11W— , 11■� 3 ill 111111iiIIllli. If Y fill 1 ,.i§g yy if,' i 1 :'11 ,;;I i111 ,.;yy' ii a � i 7' ( 1 I 111 1 � �ii gii�a� € i E E E ;ill g'FICA a k „« *`� wn. .., 1! i E g 11 di 1ii 1111 i q!r °ilt13 ..a , "11liaisiaali a Ff ? . i, `'.: 0 *c - U) Tr — tls zit k 1 s 6.4,1 21- s. awl 1 , _ 44111M- :a,i + �ifitet �1EG . 2 2 2122 2 s: • It _t't:!!=..�5 1 ti,) _ + +,�yy��jj�! ti�i�ii-iil _ 1. 1L J.__—;11;;;,-_-=a m.-........--- , c, tv ." "11111111"9111r7 1.... •,.......etr2"....2:-;;*.t ..t..n..-nr.`!-..f......I' 2.e......."Airialrar..""—„ii .."....."'.-,..4), r..,--7.**,......,ewt7.,1 4 1 ,..a. z it11 1i iiii 410 a { if nrr � � ' U U o u) d "' .;f; :Hil `" .:j ?1 :, I _ - ,� VII . it I',9 `y ycr) V :II c co e, itO -: - z.-z.I' Re- , y iii _ , 1 �� tilira't ;i t I as 3 O n -.. nr� It- 11'"- la co t a) co P, a all 7+; !p� ,. cam o Q. �( - - . u 76 r: �:1-gin ►;�`; _ i «�}®� } 1oi®1; ' v;eiej+ ;®fie► ', _ 1:1 PI-t- -fill: :11': els# iec: i — M' fid --111- it itr am- :paiali,katmiitavigili m ;• el , 7 i'C _at , loim t;,i, ; I pi tB ®19{®f Obi 4 I 4: r �1' E "x./ ! 11 i air nit . -r-Fri T 1 = i._� hint 1 ;;I -! �, 46 F: :,If . I I II a i tr ,3 1,el t ;I #� " ta fIX11 • , - 0: i ...• !1 ; _! , i i .l J 1 Ia f 1_ iia t, ( O M X11 71 t �1� i 41 :- ' ri •• "II um Z14' Ai lintel rrilleggillistsig w lit !I Alinmut . c • 2 0. ca -1: riii -t,iprz 1�11,1 : IR , 11,1 I . sit i � liE4an. A ) I 1� i wo ru w ' a Commissioner, Pertinent pages from County records have been attached in hopes of allowing a better understanding of the Wolf Creek PUD specifically with regards to density allocation, the proposed Vanderbilt Reserve site plan and offsite improvements. A) History of density allocation in Wolf Creek RPUD: Sept 23, 2003 - Ordinance 2003-45 - Wolf Creek PUD established - 147.69 acres with 591 dwelling units approved and maximum permitted density of 4 dwelling units per acre - no allocation to any specific parcel or development but separate parcels delineated August 23, 2004 - Cost Sharing Agreement entered into OR 3635: Dwelling units assigned to parcels - note parcel numbers for CSA are different than those in County WCPUD document Upon execution of the agreement there was an immediate transfer of dwelling units from parcels 4, 5 & 6 to parcel 1 Following that transfer, the owner of parcel 1&2 had a limited time option to purchase additional density from the owner of parcels 7, 8 & 9, and this option expired in 2005 Density only transferable with written permission of owner of property losing density Runs with the land - owner is property owner May 22, 2007 - Ordinance 2007-46 - Mederos 20 acre parcel added to WCPUD BCC minutes May 22-23, 2007 pages 70-71 80 dwelling units requested for now Vanderbilt Reserve Parcel 9 no density bonuses requested, density of 3.99 80 dwelling units specifically allocated to the —20 acres which is now the Vanderbilt Reserve Parcel 9 - pg 17 Ord 2007-46 states "80 dwelling units approved in the the 20 acres being added" May 14, 2013 - Ordinance 2013-37 - Scenic Woods and a portion of Palermo Cove brought into WCPUD 83 dwelling units specifically assigned to parcels 1A-3A density was assigned, thus only usable by those parcels page 11 Ord 2013-37 Minutes from CCPC dated March 21, 2013 pigs 53-54: County and developer lawyers worked together to construct verbiage that would specifically allocate the 83 dwelling units that were being added to parcels 1 A- 3A only and limited the density in 1 A-3A such that they could not increase their density by taking dwelling units from those already present in WCPUD - thus, no pool of dwelling units in WCPUD, they were all allocated to specific parcels by the CSA and the subsequent WCPUD amendments in 2007 and 2013 - see chairman's concerns - the allocation was a purposeful intent by the county Observations: All dwelling units within WCPUD have been specifically allocated to parcels - there are no "free"dwelling units within a PUD pool For those parcels party to the CSA, the dwelling units run with the land and the owners The CSA differentiates between developer and owner A developer does not have any claim to dwelling units other than to those allocated to land that he personally owns Dwelling units governed by the CSA cannot be transferred without written permission from the owner losing density Based upon the CSA allocations, there are 103 dwelling units allocated to Black Bear Ridge parcels that have not been used and are controlled by the individual lot owners not the developer- these cannot be transferred without written authorization from the lot's owner Vanderbilt Reserve parcel 9 of WCPUD or parcel 3 of the CSA is allocated 80 dwelling units by OR 2007-46 and approved for a density of 4 Vanderbilt Reserve parcel 3B of WCPUD being — 12 acres or—60% of parcel 4 of the CSA would be allocated 24 dwelling units based upon acreage (there are 40 units total allocated to parcel 4 by the CSA, which is parcel 3A and 3B of the WCPUD) Conclusions: The county has recognized the CSA allocation of dwelling units within WCPUD and further, it has allocated additional dwelling units to the PUD according to parcel in all subsequent ordinances/PUD amendments B) The Vanderbilt Reserve Site Plan Observations:The proposed site plan for Vanderbilt Reserve shows 215 dwelling units total on the two parcels making up the development The southern parcel (#9 of WCPUD) has 115 dwelling units platted and 4 partial units The southern parcel (#9 of WCPUD) is only allocated 80 units by OR 2007-46 The northern parcel (#3B of WCPUD) has 96 dwelling units platted and 4 partial units The northern parcel is allocated 24 dwelling units by the CSA based upon acreage it consists of -12 acres, which is-60% of the total acreage of parcel #3 WCPUD (parcel #4 of CSA) - which was allocated 40 dwelling units by the CSA, therefore based upon acreage, 3B would be allocated 24 dwelling units by the CSA Conclusions:The proposed site development plan for Vanderbilt Reserve has platted density not available or approved C) Offsite Improvements for Wolf Creek PUD - PristineNanderbilt Beach intersection Observations: Ordinance 2003-45 - WCPUD Master Plan Exhibit A shows a right turn in lane from Vanderbilt onto Pristine - note also right turn in lanes at Buckstone and into Mission Hills - these have been constructed The right turn in lane from Vanderbilt onto Pristine is present on all of the Master Plan exhibit A's through OR 2013-37 2004 CSA- OR 3635 Pgs 1696-1697 Phase I Budget for Black Bear Ridge shows line items for offsite improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection with monies to be allocated for WB Rt, EB Lt turn lanes as well as signalization There is a note under assumptions: "Vanderbilt Beach Rd temporary turn lanes not required (i.e. payments to county to build improvements to support project and to built as part of 6 lane improvements)." 2005 Construction Escrow Agreement with County for Subdivision Improvements Improvements set forth in the "Estimate" by Grady Minor are required improvements by Collier County ordinances Offsite improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection included WB Rt and EB Lt turn lanes as well as signalization - these were "required" The cost of these improvements were funded by the construction loan agreement - with a $3,057,906.50 construction loan held in a specific account The county had the right to utilize the funds for construction of the required improvements if the developer failed to complete them The requirements were binding upon the Developer's successors Google Maps - if you use google maps to look at Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd through Rt 41, the Pristine Drive/Vanderbilt Beach Rd intersection appears to be the only intersection that does not have a right turn in lane Conclusions: At the Vanderbilt/Pristine intersection a west bound right turn in lane and east bound left turn lane as well as signalization of the intersection was required from the beginning The County required the Developer of BBR to construct these offsite improvements - the most recent developer There was an Escrow agreement funded with >$3 million dollars to fund infrastructure which included the offsite improvements The improvements were not made The county was responsible for supervising the completion of the infrastructure improvements required of the developer The county did not exercise it's option to utilize the escrow funds to complete the required improvements The bond is still available (communication from county) The required improvements are the responsibility of the developer not the current homeowners of BBR and if the developer did not complete them, then the county had the means and funds available Thank you, OR: 3635 PG: 1677 construction of Segment 2 shall be deemed to be the payment of said owner(s)fair share of the cost of the North-South Road with respect to Parcel 3. 7. Wolf Creek PUD. (a) Allocation. The Wolf Creek PUD encompasses Parcel 1, Parcel 2,Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive, and Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. The Wolf Creek PUD permits 591 residential dwelling units. Unless otherwise provided herein, density shall not be transferred from one parcel to another within the Wolf Creek PUD without prior written permission of the owner of the property losing density. The Wolf Creek PUD allocated the 591 residential units as follows and as shown on Exhibit"F"attached hereto and made a part hereof: Parcel 1-64 units; Parcel 7-41 units; and all other parcels in the PUD- 81 units each. Upon the execution of this Agreement, 41 dwelling units each shall be automatically transferred from each of Parcels 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6, at no cost, to Parcel 1, with a total resulting transfer of 123 units to Parcel 1. Accordingly,the number of residential units allocated to Parcel 1 under the Wolf Creek PUD shall be 187. (b) Option to Purchase Additional Density. The owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ("Purchaser")shall have the option to purchase(in addition to the density allocated to Parcel 1 and Parcel pursuant to subsection (a) hereof) from the owner of Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive, ("Seller")up to 92 dwelling units which have been allocated'', -+ . 15. 1: -ction (a) hereof to Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. Said option may be exec . ,. •... •., re than two transactions on or before December 31, 2005 ("Expiration p' ' .7 he•purchase p. e, ch individual dwelling unit shall be $500.00. In the event Purchaser,elec o exercise this option, chaser shall,on or before the Expiration Date, notify Seller of the number o L't-pureha§ i. Clo 'ng\if any such purchase of dwelling units shall occur within 20 dayi ofheller's re a• notic= from P chser. The purchase price shall be paid in cash, wired funds, or 4 cas r s c a Mir �T` an pffice in Collier County,Florida or such other method as may be all -1,tabl t 1 `• 1:/'s sole!!discretion. Seller shall have the sole discretion to determine fic5'i ., .4. ling..1 i ati a$signed. Purchaser shall pay all costs associated with the trarer Sof dwelling units. 's o do 1 terminate on midnight of the Expiration Date and be of no fid\ orce and effect. P `�� C) (c) Contingency. In , t any statute,law�. ce,resolution,rule, or regulation is adopted and enforced by the state, u ty • _ •a •= entity (or any agency or department thereof) that would have the effect of ,,6 I. ; `1 ,-I a, 'file number of dwelling units that can be constructed within the Wolf Creek PUD(in its eii irefy ,the parties agree that Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be collectively allocated 33%of any such temporary allocation and Parcels 4 through 9 shall be allocated 67% of any such temporary allocation; provided,however,that such temporary allocation shall not have the effect of reallocating density among the parcels. For the purposes of this paragraph only, the term "temporary"shall mean for a period of no more than twelve(12)months. 8. Native Vegetation. Unless otherwise agreed by the owners of the various Parcels, all Parcels within the Wolf Creek PUD shall be designed to stand alone. All Parcels with indigenous native vegetation, as determined by Collier County, will be required to preserve or replant 25% of such native vegetation, as described in Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, or in the event of a repeal of said section, such other section of the Collier County Land Development Code controlling the same subject matter. Each of the Parcels shall provide for its own native vegetation requirements as shown within the Collier County approved environmental impact study that was submitted in conjunction with the Wolf Creek PUD rezoning petition,unless otherwise agreed to by any one or more Parcels owners. Parcels providing in excess of 25% native vegetation can transfer such credit to another Parcel under different ownership only upon written agreement of the property owner transferring the excess credit. 6 OR: 3635 PG: 1685 provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make it or its application valid and enforceable, and the validity and enforceability of all other provisions of this Agreement and all other applications of any such term or provision shall not be affected thereby,and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 17. Modifications. Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement may not be modified in any respect whatsoever or rescinded, in whole or in part, except by the consent of the owner(s)of the Parcels, and then only by written instrument duly executed, acknowledged by all of said owners,and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. No modification or termination of this Agreement shall affect the rights of any lienholder of any portion of any of the Parcels unless the lienholder consents in writing to the modification or termination. 18. Covenants Running with Land. All of the provisions of this Agreement,including all of the benefits and burdens described herein, shall run with the Parcels and shall be binding upon the Parcels and the successors in title to each of the Parcels. The rights and obligations in and to this Agreement are and shall be assignable to any and all successors in title to each of the Parcels, without the necessity of a formal assignment. However, should any party acquiring title to any of the Parcels request a formal assignment,the parties hereto agree to cooperate in the approval and execution of any such assignment. 19. Interpretation of Ownef. i i pressly provided, the term"owner" when used in this Agreement shall be dee 4. .• i e and m ,�er and the owner's successors,assigns, or successor in title. \ / l 1 20. Integration. 's�4'gre • .em...ies e�entire under tanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein,an the , ,, - : ., - s e all prior understandings. 21. Counter., - 1irr.gr-- m` .', exec a inJ number of count 'Y! erparts,each of which shall be deemed to be : asp agaifis -. , o ture appears thereon and all of which shall together constitute d the same instrum` . ej s"--1' 1 a0 22. Recording. This' : ent shall be recor. I Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 04-, TSE GIRD • {SIGNATURES BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE) 14 *** 011: 3635 PG: 1699 *** INITIAL DENSITY ALLOCATION-WOLF CREEK PUD Wolf Creek PUD's Initial Residential Unit Allocation 1446 #581 r, L. .81 4" f #1i ?#4 #7 a Dagens Lime 81km 41 alry .. Nags&Land Ta„c Lama i.�a r... 4 ° i :.„ AC B1 .:e u x\�- Mission HIM 1 84 A-2 VandrHt Beach Road A-1 Total of 147.69 acres and 581 Units EXHIBIT"F" 28 May 22-23, 2007 Will Dempsey and Rick Mercer. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Pritt? MR. PRITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Robert Pritt. I'm here on behalf of Prime Homes, LLC -- Prime Homes at Portofino Falls. It's owner of parcel number five, which we would like to add to the existing Wolf Creek PUD. I have with me -- I think you've named all the names, but Dave Underhill is also with us in case you need to have anybody testify as to planning, zoning, engineering matters, and we also have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Abbo, who's the founder of the company here today, as well as Larry Abbo, Linda Socolow and also Steve Greenfield? As has been said, Rich Yovanovich is also here. I believe that Mr. Hoover is here also on behalf of the Catalina Land Group, owner of the balance of the Wolf Creek PUD. The background here is that we're requesting a rezone from rural agricultural and planned development, planned unit development, to residential planned unit development zoning district. And as was said, we're just going to add 20.26 acres and are requesting 80 dwelling units to be added to the existing Wolf Creek PUD. This would make for a total of 167.96 acres and a total of 671 dwelling units, which may be single or multifamily dwellings, and we also are going to amend the PUD document and the associated master plan. As also has been said in the introduction, the proposal is to reduce the maximum height of multifamily structures from 42 feet and three stories to 38 feet and two stories and to eliminate some uses. The location of the property is on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road approximately one half mile west of Collier Boulevard, and we can show you that on the map. This map here, ifs kind of hard Page 70 May 22-23, 2007 to read, but what I wanted to point out here is that the -- let's see. We've got Vanderbilt road -- Beach Road here and 951 there. Thank you. And I heavily marked -- right there in the middle is parcel number five marked in red so that you can see what the situation is. The heavy black line that goes all the way around the existing PUD goes clear around -- clear around to the other side and back, carved out this -- either carved out or left out this parcel which is right smack dab in the middle. And to everybody's credit, they are trying to put this together with the existing PUD rather than create some other type of PUD or new PUD and -- so that we can have a real unified project and project area. A couple things to keep in mind. And this is all in the staff report. I know that you all have read the staff report and all the documents, but the -- in this subdistrict there's a base density of four dwelling units per acre. There's a limit of a maximum of 16 units per acre under the density rating system. And we're not asking for any density bonuses and there are no density reductions that are applicable. So the site would be eligible for four dwelling units per acre, and the requested density is actually 3.99. I'm not sure how it worked out that way. But we're asking for the four units per acre essentially. The transportation element. It's been found consistent with the transportation element. There are contingencies concerning concurrency and -- that are in the PUD document that has -- that was discussed and handled at the Planning Commission hearing and -- so that is in the PUD document that you have in front of you. One thing that is a little bit different, and that's the affordable housing impacts. The request had contained no provisions to address affordable or workforce housing demands that may be created. We went through the Planning Commission hearing process. It was Page 71 H. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the RPUD Master Plan shall be considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long- Range Transportation Plan. I. When ingress and egress improvements are determined, as necessary, right-of-way and compensating right-of-way shall be provided for and in conjunction with said improvements. J. All work within the Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a right-of-way permit. K. All internal access ways, drive aisles and roadways, not located within County right-of-way shall be privately maintained by an entity created by the developer, its successor in title, or assigns. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. L. The proposed loop road located around the Mission Hills development, that would provide access for the project onto Collier Boulevard, is conceptually shown on the RPUD Master Plan and shall be a public roadway. It shall be designed and constructed to a minimum 30 mile per hour design speed. The construction costs of the loop road shall not be eligible for impact fee credits, but the developer of the roadway may be able to privately negotiate "fair share" payments or reimbursements from neighboring property owners. M. No building permits shall be issued for any of the additional 80 units approved in the 20 acres that is being added to this PUD until such time as Vanderbilt Beach Boulevard between Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and Livingston Road, and CR 951 between Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road are substantially complete. N. Within 30 days of the adoption date of this RPUD rezone, the developers owning the property fronting Pristine Drive shall convey in fee simple to Collier County the right-of-way necessary for the two-lane construction of Pristine Drive. Each developer shall convey 30 feet for the Pristine Drive right-of-way. The anticipated width of the right-of-way is 60 feet. The turn lanes required for each individual project shall be accommodated within the project's boundary. Revised 5/31/07 to reflect BCC changes 17 general configuration of which is also illustrated by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A- 1". B. Areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1" shall be constructed as lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof may be constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be in the same general configuration and contain the same general acreage as shown by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1". Minor modification to all tracts, lakes or other boundaries may be permitted at the time of subdivision plat or SDP approval, subject to the provisions of the LDC. C. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1", such easements as necessary (utility, private, semi-public) shall be established within or along the various Tracts as may be necessary. 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USES A maximum of 6-71-754 residential dwelling units shall be constructed in the residential areas of the project. The gross project area is 4696188.78± acres. The gross project density shall be a maximum of 3.99 units per acre if all 67-1-754 dwelling units are approved and constructed-. A minimum of 83 dwelling units will be assigned to parcels 1A - 3A due to the additional acreage being added to the PUD by the owner of those parcels. In addition, parcels 1A - 3A shall be entitled to incorporate any other density owned by the developer of these parcels. There shall be a maximum density of 163 dwelling units on parcels 1A- 3A. 2.5 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a record plat, and/or condominium plat for all or part of the RPUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the RPUD Master Plan, Collier County subdivision rules, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan and Exhibit "A-1" RPUD Master Plan Amended, constitutes the required RPUD development plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with RPUD approval, a subdivision plat or SDP, as applicable, may be submitted for areas covered by the RPUD Master Plan. Any division of the property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the RPUD Master Plan Exhibit "A" and Exhibit '`A-1" -and LDC. C. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications to Collier County and the methodology for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. Words 5truok threegh are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 11 of 26 March 21,2013 Page 6. That's just a change to add a Parcel 2B.Page 7? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There are so many different owners,and I don't know if they're all represented here. I just want to make sure that all the owners know,and you're not trying to do something over them on this. I see Prime Homes—or Premier. I see Buckstone. I know Stock is in there. 3B--okay. I found out. That's Prime Homes.I just want to know— COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What page are you on,Diane? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,she's on Page 7. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was on Page 7 of 25 when they're trying to break down all the parcels. So I was going back and forth trying to find out who owned what. MR.ARNOLD: Well,what we were hying to do there is,in the addition language,was really to reflect the parcels under the joint ownership for the property we're talking about today and not changing the other. I know the ownership has changed for the others,but we didn't update the other ownership within the PUD. We just updated what's under the unified control of the application today that we're in for the changes on,which would be the Parcels IA, 1B,2A,2B,and 3A. And those were previously the Hoover and Catalina Land Holdings,et cetera,and--so now we're reflecting that currently the ownership is Raffia Holdings of Naples,LLC,and the Wolf Creek Naples Holdings,LLC. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: It was really a clarification to reflect the part we're controlling and update that ownership. We didn't feel like we needed to update parcels that weren't subject to our control,which was kind of the theme for the changes we made,which is,let's not monkey with the rest of the PUD that we're not impacting,so— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to Page 8. Anybody have any questions on Page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9? Anything on 9?Wayne,can you explain why on the top of the page you added that verbiage? MR.ARNOLD: Yeah. At the top of the page,Mr.Strain,you asked me why we added the phrase "along portions of the property boundary." And that's with respect to the water management system.And it says that—it,in essence,it says there will be a permitted berm constructed along--it basically assumes it's along the entire perimeter,and that's not in--that's not exactly true,especially now that we're combining portions of this PUD with the development of Palermo Cove. So there won't be a continuous perimeter berm,and I don't believe there was ever intended to be one. It really--it's probably a misstatement of the time. I mean,there is a perimeter berm in place,but it's not a continuous perimeter berm through,because we take inflows or water through other projects,or from other projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: So it's a clarification,really. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on Page 9? If not,Page 10? Anybody have issues on Page 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 1I? MR.ARNOLD: Page 11,I don't know what other changes you may have,but we've been talking to the County Attorney's Office in reference to Section 2.4. We had made reference to 163 units for this portion of the PUD that was described in parcels—the Parcels lA through 3A as we've referred to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. There was some new language I saw circulated,but I don't have it in this package. MR.ARNOLD: We did. We sent some Ianguage—I think if you'll flip it. Yeah. The other way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That must be a part of legal training,because there's some other attorney that does that all the time,too,Heidi. MR.ARNOLD: So this is language that Rich and Heidi worked on,and it's hying to capture that Page 53 of 85 March 21,2013 we're modifying and bringing in properties to our PUD. We think we control those units that we're bringing in. And then,of course,you've heard reference to another allocation agreement that was in place before this PUD amendment was revised. So the language here,in essence,says that we've got 83 units associated with what we're bringing in, and then there's,you know--I can't read it from here. P11 have to come over and read it if we want to read it into the record. But,in essence,the language is going to say,a minimum of 83 dwelling units will be assigned to the Parcels IA through 3A due to the additional acreage being added to the PUD by the owner of those parcels. And,in addition,Parcels 1 A through 3A shall be entitled to incorporate any other density owned by the developer of these parcels. There shall be a maximum density of 163 units on Parcels IA through 3A. And that's really for,I guess,protection of the other owners as well to make sure that we're not making a grab for more units than we think we're entitled to,nor are we going to put a bunch of density that was unanticipated on the parcels that were originally part of the agreement. So hopefully that works for everybody. I know that—I mean,obviously everything's subject to further wordsmithing,but I think that captures what we were trying to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was concerned earlier today that--I wanted to make sure that the additional density was captured by those parcels so that it wasn't spread to others who may not have expected it so—because that would be a change in intensity. And I think you've kept it that way,so that's good. Anybody else have any comments,questions? If not,let's go to Page 12. Now,this is an amendment to an existing PUD,so some of the language that we tried to correct in the Palermo can't necessarily apply to this because of the way—this product's already started.You've already got plats done and SDPs done and quite a bit. MR.ARNOLD: But I do think under Section 3.4(aX4),which is,again,the reference to the gatehouse,guardhouse,architectural features,et cetera— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all new. MR.ARNOLD: --that's new language that we added for Parcels 1A through 3A,and I think it's probably wise that we put in the same development standards that we talked about in Palermo Cove just for consistency purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's new language;I would agree. MR.ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? That's on Page 13. On Page 3--I mean,on Item 3 of that,you have carports shall be permitted within parking areas,and garages shall be permitted at the edge of vehicular pavements. With the setbacks and all the other standards for those carports and garages,I would assume,then, that the accessory-structure language on the tables that follow apply to those carports or garages;is that a correct assumption? MR.ARNOLD: I think so. That was language that currently exists,Mr.Strain. It wasn't new language we added if--ifs A3 that you're reading? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I was just curious,because we—that's the same kind of question that started our discussion on 4. But I think staff on that one—because carports would have to be accessory to units,that would be more or less your accessory standards that you would be looking at. I guess it could have been written better to begin with. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Didn't those come from the multifamily units? That's where you'd normally have a carport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's not restricted to them,but I mean,I would— COMMISSIONER VOMER: But this is a single-family dwelling project now,so it probably doesn't make any difference. Carports aren't germane,I wouldn't think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this applies to the entire Wolf Creek PUD. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Oh,yeah;that's right.Okay,yeah. Everybody else,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page 14,anybody have any issues? That's the existing language. And on Page 15 is the new language. And we have some corrections from the other document that need to be Page 54 of 85 b, ..... . .. u p 'Ifl .rr� is r 1 -. dmo l \__3��1. 11�t �n��11�1■�■1■ � i.®.�. .iQ1p _ l aany 7). moo., • _ .Hamm m..� 1 Nara- ... tM --.-.U.■..-. • inalSiu crossawawnwunwra.+n�• .moi a '"--n II ll'/11 te 4 i. 1 �..p 0 'u• _ . ' Til mei •�. �+�, i . S•I li I■ _ • p{'t)!Pi ,--1 - _--- . .,• Tiii" i,s !. ,t .„- MI ^-1 ..I.,O I lia n~ ElitIEI" _ E '..0' Wit`' 1 i,4..I ow- wyw : ao pi! Itq� N' 7. — �� , . a' it a� `J A {I ,..„......,.:,.-..,-„,:-.....---::„... ..1....: ,� . .i C I I�IIL ys( .!,,,,,,,,----.4.-- .- :;, / . e 1 --r."�— u— ?� l�.,, I c' zt m m mil Elm ter ��i � `� A� � x. ' • Mit riff 1 Tom' M Valli EZ Va, , :Iii � �!! Ilk.br ' IY11. ' ' l _Ii . . , !ntiM Y51.1 FBI %. • 4 , i l ME liar .' 'i 135VHd j. II AIM i i all�..I1li�'"-' I u r• u . . ' 1 3t'2 ii MO -fB i' ' rN IN`' , ti'. e Il i"• N - vl.taam) `� .-.. II ISVHd • r &e• F id n It a li p nit - , .tea �, �f� �l0 - I s®� Itry�l ` ' , w}2•S�II1�1' v� .f 7YJ `'z x.. g �fl - ® 9i� IiA o i 't°'.,rn" _ ��,�I g14 ,,�..�n iY+`r" i. pIsTill -II ip $� .-® Bmf •,, wz-i �q p t e .,,,-.,nil I� — NI ____,,,,-7...:11 talon.' ® piilistaI {{ I �:� if t� ;1 . ii a, ' ' of fir • i� ilio :it int '-"- mummo ..., ® Ntl .ii"" I i v.,. is <G e { Ili VII ........a=1; :!ll I,� {n �q : I ul I ... m .', V iiia �A1"• r i i �� � � -+-+ f a , Vis' alp i���� i 1 i. ,. 1 mil -*1401 _ sT410 212e ¢ `:, =-: ..ib -r ..........:=7.1.. -. 111 ,, .: arm. maps - -- _.7 .,,,,,..:=7,==... .% Iwo a.--R i SIP U ((W.Y 7WP i.. IL3111D 670/K L •V• 3 M3anuorr3 7IAI� HV'ld�ISVW and 6 111 . Gild x��x� 3'IOM ' ,. -;; SNI 'ONI?IVNI9N.Y NOSQIA ESQ �' ,.w '"-•‘' �.e.o. ®UM IEVoow WI1Th +iginten]rnv ,�F Wu IMO My. 1 1 1 i s ¢l r-- - �" � ---,, _- p—$ 9 i ga41_ N 1 I 11 11 � � a - g! 1 o qga p. w4.4 _ I -- ------ 0 ,—_-- _ 11` 6li k Ex-. ;iL !; j1j I � � ! 4 - � NI 1 11 1 Ill 1 II - --- 1 lit 11 4vic: 0 14,22„h...azum, _ ___ 1 II 'tet i il #f 4111.11 I 1_ g �It il N P g g M i 1 h I p ;4 ii 14 I, � 1 . 11 i . q,, i I i !4 // 1 :_ pi ISI I r ; 1 144.—-v..—.‘-- q i 1111 IiIhi II if II �" 1 31 ill 0 lilt $ II tIii i PI ----- I' Ii i =ii �i ii I 0 1 I ,11/1 ,i'I,l Als r P $ 14. I1i'] ll ffiir1 1} ii CRI"1111111 m ill z I'1l! W e dall ;if 311!�I . I .! 1111-xlip 11011 §1 Y ! 1 aI v 1 iI F g— a all ! Mali — _ L« � �„ — _ _ _ , F gMi ! tI J!JJiIJjJJi lli 11 I i 6 ! ! !hIIHJIOH1 aIt 1 i 1 ,8 :oil 111441241! , li i 12 ii fluiJ IJJ1IIfJJJ , " 1111" [li3s� aj 1 .r\\ .:, IIE iLV kr- � ,� V.� y r1i1 lq.3ii . . 1r N.,1 il 11 W '. lk ° ei i g • colli �i :`�fi\' ;1 g Ii ,. �a Is , o., it1 -... y 5 T— — — \\ ii ! \\`\. I X16 1 _ pp,° I I ;�\ ; _ 5 5y5�yg�y .�� A�v`� I II 1 Ri r l l , . 111 I ... ilk` 111 I 11 3: 11 1 J y $ 5 ` 5 ` \` i $ . c 5 a � r ,;k °{4 ii ' 3 1g 11 / . g 1: : .. ,--Q ,\A I,iil I� P . •,,; ` `�„` 111 1,— 1 i:,,, aNt1P4' 1 -3a It kIta ,L.__ ,,,,, ,,,,............ , 3 gli V. isle 1 W 1 I a I ! II I fa 1 A I 11 i '1 11 1 wl i 1 Ulorma".ositnai ala MI 111 Standards, current edition, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the LDC. B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all development points of ingress and egress from any County collector or arterial roadway. Said lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first permanent certificate of occupancy (CO). C. Site-related improvements (as opposed to system-related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. D. Road Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with applicable County ordinances and the LDC. E. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to: safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. F. Interconnections shall be required by Collier County staff as a condition of SDP approval. G. The developer shall be responsible for its proportional share of the cost of a traffic signal system, or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement marking at any development entrance onto the County's collector/arterial roadway network, including both ends of the loop road, should a traffic signal be warranted. If warranted, upon the completion of the installation, inspection, burn-in period, and final approval/acceptance of said traffic signal it shall be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County, and will then be operated and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Department. H. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the RPUD Master Plan Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1, shall be considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Woff Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 23 of 26 OR: 3635 PG: 1696 Black Btar__Ridge-Phase I Budget Off-lte Improvements Item-North-South Outer Loop Road Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 AC 53,500.00 57,000.00 2 Silo Fence 2,800 LF 51.50 54,200.00 . 3 Fill 8,500 CY S9.00 S76,300.00 4 Final Grade I LS $6,500.00 56,300.00 5 Valley Gutter 2,700 LF 55.50 514,850.00 6 8'Limoroek Base(compacted and primed) 4,800 SY S7,50 $36,000.00 7 12-Stabilized Subgrade 5,750 SY 51.25 $12,937.50 8 3"Asphalt 4,800 SY 58.50 $40,800.00 9 Signing dt pavement markings 1 LS 56,500.00 96,500.00 . 1.0 Sodding 5,800 SY 51.50 58,700.00 11 5'Wide Concrete Sidewalk 1,500 SY S16.50 S24,750.00 12 4"Lonerock(under sidewalk) 1,500 SY 54.30 $6,750.00 13 Maintenance of Traffic I LS 52,500.00 52,500.00 Subtotal (T .. ;t "x $24+7,987.50 Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements antity Unit Price Total I Tutu Lanm Complete(WB Rt.EB Lt) -`'I�� $40,000.00 580,000.00 2 Signalladon -( J �' 4jp.000.00 5130,000.00 3 Side Drain Drainage(4 DBI,DBL ren 36')r L J�y}5000.00 535,000.00 4 Lighting CNN) I 'IR5,00'Ito 525 000.00 r 4,.J Sib-total 527/,000.00 Item-North-Sontb Outer p R d \— 1, Sanitary Sorel- atl UvltPtied Tatar 1 8"PVC Force Main(C-900 ,a7_,..012_,,,,,,$28,000.00 2 t'Plug Valve w/Box - , 1 r.abc\52,760.00 3 Hot Tap Future 16"Force .on ,'i 155,50000 Item-North-South Ovtet• .. Yom, . Water Maio ,`` Quaky y Unit/triceJ//' lbtal Hot Tap Existing 30"Rein( •. 1ptlleb f".,,,:r I (or alt jib and tap new 24" '4► / "e Drop t LS` S35t000AQ�(3;,000.00 2 12 PVC Water Main(CL 200) '4 1.400 I"F La` S $35,700.00 3 12'Gate Valve wBmr 'l 2 EA •..04 53,000.1H) 4 Fre Hydrant(Complete Assembly) (:),.4-., 2 FA ••,.r,.O6 54,800.00 S Permanent Bacterial Sample Point 2 - r--r--",^ ,,.,,.00 $1,000.00 6 Temporary Bacterial Sample Point CI' L.,„'`� ",,.00 5900.00 7 ArRelnseValve ' 51.550.00 53,100.00 Sub-Total ,..C./.:',1111','%',.;i i? ,r $83,500.00 Item-North-South Outer Loop Road- Drainage Quantity Unit Price Total I Control Structure 1 Eco 54,000.00 51,000.00 2 15"RCP 100 LF 523.00 52,300.00 3 18"RCP 350 LF 525.00 S11,750.00 4 24'RCP 1,200 LF $34.00 $40,800.00 5 Valley Gaiter Throat Inlet 6 EA $2,000.00 512,000.00 6 Grate Inlet 4 EA 51,700.00 $6,800.00 7 Junction Box 8 EA $1,850.00 514,600.00 8 15"Floral End Section I FA 5900.00 $900.00 Sab-Total U"". : s70,5s0.00 O19-SiteTetels ;y-X, t,3`••x;;.y: $728,97.50 1'14/2004 EXHIBIT"D"-Page 2 of 3 25 OR: 3635 PG: 1697 Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Assumptions Construction stake out excluded. Permit fees excluded. Impact fees excluded. Engineering fees excluded. Testing services excluded. Street lighting excluded(except VBR intersection). Conservation Area No mitigation,or replanting costs included(clearing only). Sewer �//^'`�� Sewer profile has been adjusted to include R Car j (r� service for the potential lots on the Comcastv Drainage 7„,L..), _ -1-' Water } Will provide water service stubs or2 'i • • 'Zip it,+� �' f"' Earthwork and Clearing tai - Fill from lakes is limited to onlyl C4$ nation depth below existing D' z • . endation. An average of 1.6 ft of fill over th developed site. 0 Rock excavation,rock crushing and 'natal incidental to the lake exca .._i C) IE t Paving T IL 1 � Sidewalk cost included in initial infrastructure. t Offsite Inner loop road to be built by others,including turn lanes to serve site(no costs assumed). Vanderbilt Beach Rd 6 lane improvements in place(I.e.force main). Vanderbilt Beach Rd temporary turn lanes not required(I.e.payment to county to build improvements to support project and to built as part of 6 lane improvements). %% ice: Qite ---JZt +-."...-C /6q, oy, EXHIBIT"D"-Page 3 of 3 26 CONSTRUCTION,MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS-(INFRASTRUCTURE) THIS AGREEMENT entered into this 30' day of August, 2005 by Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (hereinafter "Developer"), THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (hereinafter the "Board"), and Orion Bank, a Florida banking corporation(hereinafter"Lender"). RECITALS ORIGINAL A. Developer has, simultaneously with the delivery of this Agreement, applied for the approval by the Board of a certain plat of a subdivision to be known as:Black Bear Ridge. B. The subdivision will include certain improvements which are required by Collier County ordinances, as set forth in a site construction cost estimate ("Estimate") prepared by Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1. For purposes of this Agreement, the "Required Improvements" are limited to those described in the Estimate. C. Sections 10.02.05 and 10.02.04 of the Collier County Subdivision Code Division of the Unified Land Development Code require the Developer to provide appropriate guarantees for the construction and maintenance of the Required Improvements. D. Lender has entered into a construction loan agreement with Developer dated June 2, 2005 (the"Construction Loan")to fund the cost of the Required Improvements. E. Developer and the Board have acknowledged that the amount Developer is required to guarantee pursuant to this Agreement is THREE MILLION FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50), and this amount represents 110% of the Developer's engineer's estimate of the construction costs for the Required Improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Developer, the Board and the Lender do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Developer will cause the water, sewer, roads, drainage, and like facilities, the Required Improvements, to be constructed pursuant to specifications that have been approved by the Development Services Director within 12 months from the date of approval of said subdivision plat. 2. Developer hereby authorizes Lender to hold THREE MILLION FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50) from the Construction Loan, in escrow, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The aizzeut Orion Bank account number for this account is 8500006690. Zor 3. Lender agrees to hold in escrow THREE MILLION FIFTY-SEVEN 4 At& doles SUP vi ttstos-- THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50) from the Construction Loan, to be disbursed only pursuant to this Agreement. Lender acknowledges that this Agreement shall not constitute a draw against the Construction Loan fund, but that only such funds as are actually disbursed, whether pursuant to this Agreement or a provision of the Construction Loan, shall accrue interest. 4. The escrowed funds shall be released to the Developer only upon written approval of the Development Services Director who shall approve the release of the funds on deposit not more than once a month to the Developer, in amounts due for work done to date based on the percentage completion of the work multiplied by the respective work costs less ten percent (10%); and further, that upon completion of the work, the Development Services Director shall approve the release of any remainder of escrowed funds except to the extent of $305,790.65 which shall remain in escrow as a Developer guaranty of maintenance of the Required Improvements for a minimum period of one (1) year pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the Agreement. However, in the event that Developer shall fail to comply with the requirements of this Agreement, then the Lender agrees to pay to the County immediately upon demand the balance of the funds held in escrow by the Lender, as of the date of the demand, provided that upon payment of such balance to the County, the County will have executed and delivered to the Lender in exchange for such funds a statement to be signed by the Development Services Director to the effect that: (a) Developer for more than sixty (60) days after written notification of such failure has failed to comply with the requirements of this agreement; (b) The County, or its authorized agent, will complete the work called for under the terms of the above-mentioned contract or will complete such portion of such work as the County, in its sole discretion shall deem necessary in the public interest to the extent of the funds then held in escrow; (c) The escrow funds drawn down by the County shall be used for construction of the Required Improvements engineering, legal and contingent costs and expenses, and to offset any damages, either direct or consequential, which the County may sustain on account of the failure of the Developer to carry out and execute the above-mentioned development work; and, (d) The County will promptly repay to the Lender any portion of the funds drawn down and not expended in completion of the said development work. 5. Written notice to the Lender by the County specifying what amounts are to be paid to the Developer shall constitute authorization by the County to the Lender for release of the specified funds to the Developer. Payment by the Lender to the Developer of the amounts specified in a letter of authorization by the County to the Lender shall constitute a release by the County and Developer of the Lender for the funds disbursed in accordance with the letter of authorization from the County. 6. The Required Improvements shall not be considered complete until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been • furnished to be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director for compliance with the Collier County Subdivision Regulations. 7. The County Manager or his designee shall, within sixty(60) days of receipt of the statement of substantial completion, either: a) notify the Developer in writing of his preliminary approval of the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of his refusal to approve the improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the Developer must fulfill in order to obtain the Director of the Required Improvements. However, in no event shall the Development Services Director refuse preliminary approval of the improvements if they are in fact constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. 8. Should the funds held in escrow be insufficient to complete the Required Improvements, the Board, after duly considering the public interest, may at its option complete the Required Improvements and resort to any and all legal remedies against the Developer. 9. Nothing in this Agreement shall make the Lender liable for any funds other than those placed in deposit by the Developer in accordance with the foregoing provision; provided, that the Lender does not release any monies to the Developer or to any other person except as stated in this Escrow Agreement to include closing the account or disbursing any funds from the account without first requesting and received written approval from the County. 10. The Developer shall maintain all Required Improvement for one year after preliminary approval by the County Manager or his designee. After the one year maintenance period by the Developer and upon submission of a written request for inspection, the Development Services Director shall inspect the Required Improvements and, if found to be still in compliance with the Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Lender's responsibility to the Board under this Agreement is terminated. The Developer's responsibility for maintenance of the Required Improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for and by the County. 11. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the Developer and the Lender. (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank-Signatures Begin on Next Page) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and the Developer have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives this 101' day of 414,i,2005. /14?„sY- /.... . DEVELOPER: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC, a Florida limited liability company i„rgoa ii. By: Catalina Land Group, (P '4,14 76?. Y .57 ' ) a Florida corporation, 111111111 its Manager (Print Name: fp'co-IL. r., t ) By: / ".4.?„,—e-----.,...,,, Wi l L. Hoover, President LENDER: Orion Bank, i„ a Florida banking corporation 0 , MA 4 A..146iftlirl e•- r---"- BY:(?Ga,47:•,e, ,,,r-e//". MilIliir L491 Name: ffrr get X. K Mt L L. ..•L (Print Name:; Brandy A. Rasehie Title: S "4 s ,C Pt'cE $9lf?9$t bet . ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA I2.YI6 -[;4. QCK,Clerks's-.. ...t_421 (A). 61-4•80C1k. u CIerl 4 C Chairman rS f griatti%4n.1,ya EO L) • Cy approved 4s•totfartri and legal sufficiency: \ci_ Assistant County At ey '� .} NiU nV 2 .,.. �1.........E ..4 •.11,0 SubdnIsson...... Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Off-site Improvements (PRISTINE DRIVE) %PROGRESS BUDGET Site Work •uantitv Unit Price Total AS OF 9-15-06 CONSUMED 1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 AC $3,500.00 57,000.00 100% $7,000.00 2 Silt Fence 2,800 1F $1.50 $4,200.00 100% $4,200.00 3 Fill 8,500 CY $9.00 $76,500.00 100% $76,500.00 4 Final Grade 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00 100% $6,500.00 5 Valley Gutter 2,700 IF $5.50 $14,850.00 100% $14,850.00 6 8"Limernck Base(compacted and primed) 4,800 SY $7.50 $36,000.00 100% $36,000.00 7 12"Stabilized Subgrade 5,750 SY $2.25 $12,937.50 100% $12,937.50 8 3"Asphalt 4,800 SY $8.50 $40,800.00 60% $24,480.00 9 Signing&pavement markings 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00 0% $0.00 10 Sodding 5,800 SY $I.50 $8,700.00 0% $0.00 11 5'Wide Concrete Sidewalk 1,500 SY $16.50 $24,750.00 0% $0.00 12 4"Limemck(under sidewalk) 1,500 SY $4.50 $6,750.00 0% $0.00 13 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 100% $2,500.00 Sub-total $247,987.50 Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements •uanti Unit Price Total 1 Turn Lanes Complete(WB Rt,EB Li) 2 LS $40,000.00 $80,000.00 0% $0.00 2 Signalization 1 LS $130,000.00 $130,000.00 0% $0.00 3 Side Drain Drainage(4 DBI,DBL run 36") 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 100% $35,000.00 4 Lighting 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 0% $0.00 Sub-total $270,000.00 Sanitary Sewer Quante Unit Price Total I 8"PVC Force Main(C-900 Class 200) 1,400 LF $20.00 $28,000.00 100% $28,000.00 2 8"Plug Valve w/Box 2 EA 51,380.00 $2,760.00 100% $2,760.00 3 Hot Tap Future 16"Force Main on VBR I LS $5,500.00 $5,500.00 100% $5,500.00 Sub-total • $36,260.00 Water Main Quantity Unit Price Total Hot Tap Existing 30"Reinf Cone Water Main 1 . (or alt m j/b and tap new prop 24"wm) I LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 100% $35,000.00 2 12"PVC Water Main(CL 200) 1,400 LF $25.50 $35,700.00 100% $35,700.00 3 12"Gate Valve w/Box 2 EA $1,500.00 $3,000.00 100% $3,000.00 4 Fire Hydrant(Complete Assembly) 2 EA $2,400.00 $4,800.00 100% $4,800.00 5 Permanent Bacterial Sample Point 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 100% $1,000.00 6 Temporary Bacterial Sample Point I EA $900.00 $900.00 100% $900.00 7 Air Release Valve 2 EA $1,550.00 $3,100.00 100% $3,100.00 Sub-Total $83,500.00 Drainage Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Control Structure I EA $4,000.00 $4,000.00 100% $4,000.00 2 15"RCP 100 IF $23.00 $2,300.00 100% $2,300.00 3 18"RCP 350 IF $25.00 $8,750.00 100% $8,750.00 4 24"RCP 1,200 IF $34.00 $40,800.00 100% $40,800.00 5 Valley Gutter Throat Inlet 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000.00 100% $12,000.00 6 Grate Inlet 4 EA $1,700.00 $6,800.00 100% $6,800.00 7 Junction Box 8 EA $1,850.00 514,800.00 100% $14,800.00 8 15"Flared End Section I EA $900.00 $900.00 100% $900.00 Sub-Total $90,350.00 Off-SiteTotals _ $728,097.50 59% $430,077.50 9/15/2006 LykinsDave From: Richard Yovanovich <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 3:48 PM To: R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Steve Bracci Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: Stock pf Buckstone Estates Purchase & Sale Agreement.pdf; Assignment of Construction Documents & Permits.pdf; Cost Sharing Agreement for the Development of Shared Access Road (OR 363....pdf Dear Commissioners, The petition before the BCC pertains to the modification of the preserve area. As I previously stated, it is my understanding that the Mederos parcel is limited to a density of 80 units. Mr. Bracci provided you with some of the legislative history supporting my understanding with regards to the PUD limiting density. Mr. Anderson stated to the BCC that the change in preserve area is related to increasing the lot size. However,the current plat submitted by his client clearly shows the purpose is to increase density beyond the PUD permitted density of 80 units for the Mederos parcel. Increasing density cannot occur through the Insubstantial Change process. Therefore, as long as the approval of the reduction in preserve size is conditioned upon development of the Mederos parcel being limited to 80 units, my client does not object to the petition filed by Mr. Anderson's client. I appreciate that the prior property owner had other site plans with a higher density. However, there is no evidence that the prior site plans were approved by the County. Accordingly, the prior site plans are irrelevant and not consistent with the PUD. As to the ownership of the 103 units, that is a private matter. We do not agree with Mr. Bracci's position on ownership of the units. Because Mr. Bracci spent most of his allotted time addressing ownership of the excess units, we are providing copies of some documents addressing the density rights in the PUD. The Purchase and Sale Agreement clearly identifies that Stock Development purchased the excess density. Also attached is an assignment document assigning developer rights to Black Bear Ridge Naples, LLC. Finally, the Cost Sharing Agreement addresses the excess density. At no time was the excess density assigned to Mr. Bracci's client. Mr. Bracci also spent a lot of time addressing the payment for the intersection improvements at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. My client has already agreed to pay the 30% share of Black Bear Ridge set forth in the Cost Sharing Agreement for the right and left turn lanes at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road.The 30%share was based upon an allotted density of 203 units. Only 100 units were built. Black Bear Ridge, LLC remains the owner of the unbuilt 103 units. The unbuilt units have not been assigned to the residents of Black Bear Ridge or to the Homeowner's Association. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Richard D. Yovanovich Esq. Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. COLEMAN AN 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 0 YOVA V H 300 Naples, Florida 34103 i (239) 435-3535 KESTER (239) 435-1218 (f) This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above email address.Thank you. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc:Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com>; Richard Yovanovich <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however, the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved. The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands. The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. 2 Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFYPASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTQa%FYt AT LAW 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson(cr�napleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. • From:Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent:Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci _ Ilr112 Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 3 ...� Exhibit "B" "1114 1• 1.PARTIES AND PROPERTY: S-bC*- eao�wut+�+Lit , F7ortc111- 4lr'k`t4'C (t'bi ii�j � ar,Y ('Buyer'') 2- agrees to buy and euckatone tntatas, LLC, a Florida iiuitad liability company ("Seiler") a• agrees to sell the property described as;Street Address: see attached lsgel deecriptioo 4• s' Legal Description: Baa Attached Legal Description f Intan able 7' end the following Raeen&Property:see Addend= • 8' G (all collectively referred 10 as the"Property")on the terms and conditions set forth below. °° , 1m E 2.PURCHASE PRICE: $ 3,S"ZSi 000, (a)Deposit held In escrow by Conroy, Conroy a Durant $ + '2 (+Escrow Agenti 1011001.3 o+W.ai'to eau.End eel=tscee) (1u1 w/in Z business days of Effective Date) 13' Escrow Agent's address: 2210 vandarbilt leash toad Phone: 239.499,5200 14- (tri-AriditiOnet'depi ttc-be-made A ef' -wt *--- etata E fectiver sate $ n/a 15' (14Ad bOi>akie-Friado32.6.CGrGw; gacit'wittsiR rciayCatler-EffactkAa.0+'+ta $ n/'° 8 (d)-Wit firmtlf1 X)(A"pArVI ' $ n/a '.r (e)Other n/n $ n/x to (f)All deposits will be credited to the purchase price at closing.Balatl0e to close,subject Co 1a• to adjustments and prorations,to be paid with localy drawn cashier's or official bank $ 3 i r 560 20 check(s)or wire transfer. 21 3.TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE;EFFECTIVE DATE:COMPUTATION OF TIME: Unless this offer is signed by Seiler and Buyer 22'and an executed Copy delivered to al parties on or before 20 says ,this offer will be withdrawn and the 23 Buyer's deposit.if any,will be returned.The time for acceptance of any counter Offer will be 3 days from the date the counter : 24 offer is delivered.The"Effective Date'of this Contract is the date on which the last one.of the Seiler and Buyer has signed and as or initialed and delivered this offer or the final counter offer.Calendar days will be used when computing time periods,excepilb as time periods of 5 days or less.Time periods of 6 days cc less will be computed without Including Saturday,Sunday.or national ?Ink 27 legal holidays.Any time period ending on a Saturday,Sunday,or national legal holiday will extend until 5:00 p.m.of the next `end 20 2e business day.'Time is of the essence In this Contract. 2s 4.CLOSING DATE AND LOCATION: within 30 days after the expiration of the Due V 30• (a)Closing Date: This transaction will be dosed oa.��eriod (Closing Date),unless specifically 31 extended by other provisions of this Contract.The Closing Date will prevail over all other time periods including,but not limited 32 to.Financing and Due Diligence periods.In the event Insurance underwriting Is suspended on Closing Date and Buyer is unable 33 to obtain property insurance, Buyer may postpone closing up to 5 days after the insurance underwriting suspension Is lifted. sol (b)Location:Closing wit take plate in Colli■r County,Florida,(If left blank, 3s closing wit take place In the county where the Property is located)Closing may be conducted by mal or electronic means. 30'Buyer f 801 C_...�end Seller( )(,-_�eckrbowtedge receipt of a copy of this page,which is Page 1 of 7 Pages. Egg.g CO-3 Rev.1003 0 21Xe F3arlda Association of lia&ross- Al festa%saved Thi+ .eltrar. 1. lidaasd to N. Conroy - Taloa a.saposent a *Silty, LUCl r1,e.traII/a0ti000140k.ova. 37 5.THIRD PARTY FINANCING: g/A sr R'S OB TIQN: Wthin days(5 days if -: blank)after Effective Date : er wit apply • third party fine ' . in an 35• t not exceed %oft : . dress price. .. with a fixed int: -st rate not to ex.::•- % per year an Initial variable I ,- t rate not to :,e_:• %,with points• commitment • •an fees not to=• .::. % er of the dpal amount,for a tie of -., . d amortized over . ,with addle.••-; terms as follows: 17 +3 B sr we timely provide - and all credit, • ployment,financial and o• : irtformaton :: •.nablyrequired by lender.B .-r 44• it use good faith art. =:sonable diig:r.:to()obtain Loan •.... : • ' da = 45 days if left blan • Effective r:to 15 (Loan Approval Da- ,( satisfy term: : • conditlone of the Loan • •. . :I,and(VI)clo-:the loan.Buyer w, keep Seller: • as Broker fully elf. ►-:. about loan :.4$' :tion status and aut • •_ • :mortgage ix• - and lender to d :all such int., :tion • 47 to Seller and - • : .Buyer wi •tiny Beller rrrunediatety u..• obtaining - - being rejected by. lender. 4a CANC • ! :If Buyer, :,•-: using good faith and tea-.•:..e clilgence,falls obtain Loan Appr. -I by Loan Ala. • - Date, ew Buyer r- within -- - (3 days If left blank)de : tten notice to. • stating Buyer :'..: waives this fi - ng 53 con •enty or dance- is Contract n Buyer does , i er,then Beller ma •: al this Con.: • dekvering w' - notice s to -, - at any ti : , -eafter.Unless this fired - contingency has• waived,this Conte shall remain su• . to the 52 •:tisfaction,by •eng,of those conditions of Lo . Approval related to a Property. • DEPOSIT(S) t purposes of Paragraph 5 •• :if Buyer has used •.•Pith and re:•....:.:diligence but..::not obtain ._ s4 Approval. .: Approval Date and . :.::': either party elects ,. .: .- this Con • = sat forth above• the lender fa :or • ss refines e dose on or before the Closing r: without fault on ; . - s pert,the Dep.: (s)shall be r: .. o Buyer,who-:upon as Moth •. MI be mimed from all fur : obligations under . Contract,except-• obligations staled -rein as su ' • . the sr t:.. . :;. of this Contract.If -,••- elects to termina: l is Contract as •rth above or Buyer :Is to use..•, faith or se r.: . :.a dlietence as set forth:.. :,Seller wiI be - , :i to retain the a:.. •,a)if the transaction •oes not dose, sr 6.TITLE: Beller has the legal capacity to and will convey marketable title to the Property by 6i statutory warranty deed se Cl other ,free of lens,easements and encumbrances of record or known to Selzer, 61 but subject to property taxes for the year of closing;covenants,restrictions and public utlilfy easements of record;existing zoning re and governmental regulations;and(1st any other matters to which title will be Subject) sr 54• es provided there exists at dosing no violation of the foregoing and none of them prevents Buyer's intended use of the Property as er • 57 (a)Evidence of The:The party who pays the premium for the title insurance policy will select the dosing agent andPsY for i'- se. the title search and closing services.Seller wit,at(check one) tit Seller's 0 Buyer's expense and within 7 days Cr after aa' Effective Date a or at bast days before Closing Date deliver to Buyer(check one) no- lB(1.)a title insurance commitment by a Florida licensed title Insurer and,upon Buyer recording the deed,an owner's policy r+ In the amount of the purchase price for fee simple title subject only to exceptions stated above.If Buyer is paying for the n evidence of title and Seller has an owner's policy,Seller will deliver a copy to Buyer within 15 days after Effective Date. re CI(ii.)an abstract of title.prepared or brought current by an existing abstract firm or certified as correct by en existing firm, re However,If such an abstract is not available to Beller,then a prior owner's title policy acceptable to the proposed insurer as 75 a base for reissuance of coverage may be used.The prior policy we Include copies of all policy exceptions and an update rs in a format acceptable to Buyer from the policy effective date and certified to Buyer or Buyer's closing agent together with n copies of all documents recited in time prior policy and in the update If such an abstract or prior policy Is not available to ra Seller then(.)above will be the evidence of tftfe. - 79 (b)Title Examination:Buyer will,within 15 days from receipt of the evidence of tine deliver written notice to Seller or title eo defects.Title wit be deemed acceptable to Buyer If(1)Buyer fails to deliver proper notice of defects or(2)Buyer delivers proper st- written notice and Seiler cures the defects within 15 days from receipt of the notice(*Curative Period). If the defects are L' 82 cured within the Curative Period,dosing MI occur within 10 days from receipt by Buyer of notice of such curing.Seiler may 83 elect not to cure defects if Seller reasonably believes any dated cannot be cured within the Curative Period.If the defects are s4 . not cured within the Curative Period,Buyer will have 10 days from receipt of notice of Seiler's Inabliity to cure the defects to as elect whether to terminate this Contract or accept title subject to exerting defects and close the transaction without reduction in es purchase price. e (c}Survey:(check applicable provlecns below) ae• 4i Seller will,within 7 days from Effective Data,delver to Buyer copies of prior surveys,plans,specifications,and eo- engineering documents,if any,end the following documents relevant to this transection; / 93' .prepared for Seller or in Setler'a 51' Buyer AO)f 1 and Seller f )( I ackrwwfedge receipt of a Copy of this page,welch la Page 2 of 7 Pages. cc-3 Rei-I Oro() 02009 Florida Assodrson of rtirorecs• AI rights tieeaied ?Xis mottos:. is 21asamsd to (J. f-'anr+r - !alma kaa.Qasout a !malty. 1.1.C1 w•v.traamamtiaadaak.00s. • ,n possession,which show all currently existing structures.In the event this transaction does nor dose,ell documents provided by Seller will be returned to Seller wtthln 10 days from the date this Contract is terminated. a4 6t Buyer will,at 0 Salters 6I Buyer's expense and within the time period stowed to deriver and examine title evidence, ss obtain a current certified survey of the Property from a registered surveyor.t the survey reveals encroachments on the os Property or that the improvements encroach on the lands of another. IX Buyer will accept the Property with existing 07• encroachments 0 such encroachments will constitute a title defect to be cured within the Curative Period. ore (d)ingress and Egress: Seller warrants that the Property presently has ingress and egress_ C.19 7.PROPERTY CONDIYSON: Seiler will deliver the Property to Buyer at the time agreed In Its present"as Is"condition,ordinary ,oro wear and tear excepted,and will maintain the landscaping and grounds in a comparable condition.Seller makes no warranties +a1 other than marketability of title.By accepting the Property'es is,"Buyer waives all claims against Seller for any defects in the ,n2 Property.(Check(a)or(b}) 103 0(a)As Is: Buyer has inspected the Property or waives any right to inspect end:• ;pts the Property in its'as is'condition. CA ,a' (alb)Due DIIIpenoe Period:Buyer we,at Buyers expense and within iee f days from Effective Date("Due Diligence los Period"),determine whether the Property is suitable,In Buyer's sole and absolute elscretbn,for Buyers Intended use and 108 development of the Property as specified In Paragraph S.During the Due Diligence Period,Buyer may conduct any tests, 107 analyses,surveys and investigations(`inspections')which Buyer deems necessary to determine to Buyer's satisfaction the ,os Property's eng'r:oaring,architectural,environmental properties;zoning and zoning restrictions;flood zone designation and ,ce restrictions;subdivision regulations;soil and grade;availability of access to public roads,water,aud other utilities;consistency 1.t. with local,state and regional growth management and comprehensive land use plans;evalebi0ty of permits,government approvals and licenses;compliance with American with Disabilities Act;absence of asbestos,sill and ground water 112 contamination;and other Inspections that Buyer deems appropriate to determine the suitability of the Property for Buyer's 113 Intended use and development.Buyer we deliver written notice to Sailer prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period 114 of Buyer's determination of whether or not the Property is acceptable.Buyer's failure to comply with this notice requirement „s vvr1l constitute acceptance at the Property in its present'as is'condition.Seiler grants to Buyer,its agents.contractors and es assigns,the right to enter the Property at any time during the Due Diligence Period for the purpose of conducting tnspectlone: 117 provided,however,that Buyer,its agents,contractors and assigns enter the Property and conduct Inspections at their own 113 risk.Buyer WI Indemnify and hold Seller harmless from losses,damages,costs,claims and expenses of any nature,including is attorneys'fees at al levels,and from liability to any person,arising from the conduct of any and all inspections or any work ,2o authorized by Buyer.Buyer will not engage in any activity that coved result In a mechanic's lien being filed against the Property 121 without Seller's prior written consent.in the event this transaction does not close,(1)Buyer will repair all damages to the le Property resulting from the Inspections and return the Property to the condition it was in prior to conduct of the Inspections,and 123 (2)Buyer will,at Buyer's expense,release to Seiler all reports and other work generated as a result of the Inspections.Should 124 Buyer deliver timely notice that the Property is not acceptable,Beller agrees that Buyers deposit will be immediately returned 125 to Buyer and the Contract terminated. rot (c)Walk-through Inspection:Buyer may,on the day prior to closing or any other lime mutuaty agreeable to the parties, :27 conduct a final'wale-through"inspection of the Property to determine compliance with this paragraph and to ensure that al 128 Properly is on the premises. 122 B.OPERATION OF PROPERTY DURING CONTRACT PF31lOD: Seiler we continue to operate the Property and any business 13) conducted on the Property in the manner operated prior to Contract and will take no action that would adversely impact the 131 Property,tenants,lenders or business,if any.Any changes,such as reatieeeraceet.eleaceettiat materially affect the Property or Buyers intended use of the Property will be permitted el only with Buyer's consent❑without Buyer's consent. *Seller contracting to sell a lot(s) t� 133 9.CLOSING PROCEDURE: 134 (a)Possession and Occupancy:Seiler will delver possession and occupancy of the Property to Buyer at closing.Seller will 13s provide keys,remote controls,and any security/access codes necessary to operate all locks,mailboxes,and security systems. ,ss (b)Costs:Buyer we pay buyer's attorneys'tees,taxes arid recording fees on notes,mortgages end financing statements and 137 recording fees for the deed.'6eIer wW pay seler's attorneys'fees, nd recording fees for documents needed 135 to cure title defects.if Seiler is obligated to discharge any encumbrance at or prior to closing and fails to do so,Buyer may use tze 132 purchase proceeds to satisfy the encumbrances. *awl toes an deed ,40 (c)Documents:Seller will provide the deed;b9 of sale;mechanic's len affidavit originals of those assignable service and sr maintenance contracts that will be assumed by Buyer atter the Closing Date and letters to each service contractor from Seiler 142'Buyer(SC)( 1 and Seller( )U a:knowiedge receipt of s mpr of this page,which Is Page 3 of 7 Pages. CC-3 Rod.10.09 0 2009 Florida Msooadion of REWORD* AA Rea riesseved Viet :hie wttrar■ Lo idoomtod to [J. Conroy - Was N m„wawd o *orally. LLCI w,r.trommetLoadaik.000. ies advising each of them of the sale of the Property and,If applicable,the transfer of its contract,and any assignable warranties or 144 guarantees received or held by Seller from any manufacturer,contractor,subcontractor,or material supplier in connection with es the Property;current copies of the condominium documents,if applicable;assigrrnents of leases,updated rent rot;tenant and 1.s lender estoppel letters;assignments of permits and licenses;corrective hs;ruments;and letters notifying tenants of the change 147 In ownershk/rental agent.If any tenant refuses to execute an estoppel letter,Seller we certify that Information regarding the 14s tenant's lease is correct.If Seller is a corporation,Seiler wit delver a resol.ttlon of Its Board of Directors authorizing the sale 149 and delivery of the deed and certification by the corporate Secretary cartifying the resolution and setting forth facts showing the 15o conveyance conforms to the requirements of local law,Seller veil transfer security deposits to Buyer.Buyer we provide the asi closing statement,mortgages and notes,security agreements,and financing statements. 152 (d)Taxes and Proration*:Real estates taxes,personal property taxes on any tangible personal property,bond payments i5s assumed by Buyer,interest,rents,association dues,insurance premiums acceptable to Buyer,and operating expenses wit be 'sir prorated through the day before closing. If the amount of taxes for the current year cannot be ascertained,rates for the previous ,ss year will be used with due allowance being made for improvements and exemptions.Any tax proration based on an estimate 156 will,at request of either party, be readjusted upon receipt of current year's tax bit;this provision will stxvive closing. 157 (e)Sp-.•.. .. . .at Liens:Carte:• confirmed,and r: ':. ass_.. . Piens as .f the Closing is. a will be p:': use by sr,If a oert•_.,confirmed,or = ..special• ant Is payable Instalments, ' • - we pay a1 •: ants• 159 en••.: :•Ie on• before the Closi • r•: e,with any i -1- . for any•• ..extending . : . • the C•_•,•. Date p • :.:d, ago : . Buyer wit me all nstaim: is that became.. :and payable 1,- the Closing r= a.Buyer will. .: oral tel arise- = • of any kind WWII• • due and• ng after Closing 'gate,unless an• proverment is -•bstantlalty., .:,:. as +e2 of Clod , a..• If en Improver is substantial •.mpleted as of : Closing r.,_ . has not res ad in a lien •:•ore closing, les Seller i pay the amount•• a last estimate• the assessment. tau (I)Foreign Investment In Real Property Tax Act(FIRPTA) If Seller Is a'foreign person*as defined by FIRPTA,Siler and 155 Buyer agree to comply with Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code.Sailer and Buyer will complete,execute,and deliver les as directed any instrument,affidavit,or statement reasonably necessary to comply with the FIRPTA requirements,i ciuding i67 delivery of their respective federal taxpayer identification numbers or Social Security Numbers to the dosing agent.if Buyer ee does not pay sufficient cash at dosing to meet the withholding requirement,Seller wit delver to Buyer at dosing the additional leo cash necessary to satisfy the requirement. 170 10.ESCROW AGENT: Seller and Buyer authorize Escrow Agent(Agent)to receive,deyoslt,and hold funds and other property 171 in escrow and,subject to collection,disburse them in accordance with the terms of this Contract.The parties agree that Agent 17s will not be liable to any person for misdalivery of escrowed Items to Seller or Buyer,unless the misdelivery is due to Agent's wilful 73 breach of this Contract or gross negligence.If Agent has doubt as to Agent's duties or obligations under this Contract.Agent may, 174 at Agent's option,(a)hold the escrowed items until the parties mutually agree to Its disbursement or until a court of competent 175 jurisdiction or arbitrator determines the rights of the parties or(b)depose the escrowed items with the clerk of the court having 178 jurisdiction over the matter and file an action In Interpleader.Upon notifying the parties of such action,Agent will be released from 1n el lability except for the duty to account for items previously delivered out of escrow.If Agent is a linensed mai estate broker, iia Agent we comply with Chapter 475,Florida Statutes_In any suit in whlch Agent rsterpleeds the escrowed items or is made a party ire because of acting as Agent hereunder,Agent wit recover reesonabie attorney's fees end costs Incurred,with these amounts to be ieo peed from and out of the escrowed Items and charged and awarded as court costs in favor of the proveh ug party, 1s1 11.CURE PERIOD: Prior to any claim for default being made,a party WI have an opportunity to cure any alleged default,if 1n a party fails to comply with any provision of this Contract,the other party will delver written notice to the non-complying party cies•specifying the non-complence.The non-complying party will have s days(5 days if left blank)after de Geary of such notice to -' tau cure the non-compliance. les 12.RETURN OF DEPOSIT: Unless otherwise specified In the Contract,in the event any condition of this Contract Is not met 1® and Buyer has timely given any required notice regarding the condition having not been met.Buyer's deposit wit be returned in ire accordance wlth.applicable Florida laws and regulations. las 13.DEFAULT: 180 (a)In the event the sale is not closed due to any default or failure on the pert of Seller other than failure to make the title ssi- iso marketable after diligent effort, Buyer may either(1)receive a refund of Buyer's deposits)or(2)seek specific performance.If 101 Buyer elects a deposit refund,Seller we be table to Brokerfor the full amount of the brokerage fee. 192 (b)In the event the sale is not closed due to any default or failure on the part of Buyer,Seller may either(1)retain sit deposit(a) iso paid or agreed to be paid by Buyer as agreed upon liquidated damages,consideration for the execution of this Contract,and 124'Buyer(66)f )and Siler(_,}( _- af1Qlow1edge receipt of a copy of This page,which Is Page 4 of 7 Pegem- CC.9 Res este o 200G Florida Aeroolefon a i aj • Al earls liesaml urea aortas• t. 3to.aa.4 to IS. a.aa.y - rate.Iaa.aev..nat 4 Maly. sLal rv..tr.oa..tt.arM.k.ems. 1s5 in felt settlement of any dein,upon which this Contract will terminate or(2)seek specific performance.If Seller retains the ice deposit.Seller wMIl pay the Brokers named in Paragraph 20 fifty percent of all forfeited deposits retained by Seiler(to be split 197 equaly among the Brokers)up to the f 1 amount of the brokerage fee. use 14.ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS: In any claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Contract,the prevaling party, rail which for purposes of this provision wit include Buyer.Seller and Broker,wit be awarded reasonable attorneys'fees,costs,and 200.expenses. 201 16.NOTICES: Ali notices will be In watIng and may be delivered by mail,personal delivery,or electroric means.Parties agree to 232 send all notices to addresses specified on the signature pagers).Any notice,document,or Item given by or delivered to an attorney az or real estate licensee(including a transaction broker)representing a party will be as effective as if given by or delivered to that party. 204 18.DISCLOSURES: 205 (e)Commercial Real Estate Sales Commission Use Act The Florida Commercial Real Estate Sales Commission hen Act ere provides that when a broker has earned a commission by performing licensed services under a brokerage agreement with you, 207 the broker may claim a lien against your net sales proceeds for the borer's commission.The broker's lien rights under the act tae cannot be waived before the commission is earned. 200 (b)Special Assessment Liens Imposed by Public Body:The Property may be sub(ect to unpaid special assessment lien(s) 210 imposed by a public body.(A public body Indudes a Community Development District.)Such liens,if any,shalt be paid as set 211 forth In Paragraph 9.(e). 212 (c)Radon Ges:Radon Is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that.when It has accumulated in a building In sufficient quantities, 213 may present health risks to persons who are exposed to k over time.Levels of radon that exceed federal and state guidelines 214 have been found in buildings In Florida.Additional information regarding radon and radon testing may be obtained from your 215 county public health unit, 21s (d)Energy-Efficiency Rating Infomlatlon:Buyer acknowledges receipt tithe Information brochure required by Section 217 553.996,Florida Statutes. 216 17.RISK OF LOSS: • 219 (a)it,atter the Effective Date end before obsing,the Property is damaged by fro or other casualty,Beller will bear the risk of 22o loss and Buyer may cancel this Contract without lability and the depostt(s)will be returned to Buyer.Alternatively,Buyer will ni have the option of purchasing the Property at the agreed upon purchase price and Seller wit transfer to Buyer at closing any 222 insurance proceeds,or Sailor's claim to any insurance proceeds payable for the damage.Seller will cooperate with and assist 223 Buyer in coiacting any such proceeds. 224 (b)if,after the Effective Date and before closing,any part of the Property Is taken in condemnation or under the right of eminent 225 domain,or proceedings for such taking wilt be pending or threatened,Buyer may cancel this Cntract left w he without at theablIty and 226 deposit(s)will be returned to Buyer.Alternatively,Buyer we have the option of purchasing 227 agreed upon purchase price and Seca wig transfer to the Buyer at dosing the proceeds of any award,or Seller's claim to any rzs award payable for the taking.Seller will cooperate with and assist Buyer in cofecting any such award. 2252, 18.ASSIGNABILITY:PERSONS BOUND: Itis Contract may be assigned to a related entity,and otherwise CI is not assignable .i 23o*6t is assignable.The terms"Buyer,""Seiler and"Broker may be singular or plural.This Contract Is binding upon Buyer,Seller 231 and their hers,personal representatives,successors and assigns(if assignment is permitted). 2= is.MISCELLANEOUS: The terms of this Contract constitute the entire agreement between Buyer and Seller.Modifications of 233 this Contract wi not be binc&tg unless in writing,signed and delivered by the party to be bound.Signatures,initials,documents 234 referenced in this Contract,counterparts and written modifications communicated electronically or on paper will be acceptable 235 for alt purposes,inckeiing deivery,and will be binding,Handwritten or typewritten terms inserted in or attached to this Contract ears prevail over preprinted terms.If any provision of this Contract is or becomes inveld or unenforceable,al remaining provisions will 237 continue to be fully effective.This Contract will be construed under Florida law and will riot be recorded in arty public records. • 2* Buyer f)( t end Seer L.._.J LJ acialowlaege rtrel(t of a ocpyf of the page.which 1a Page bot 7 Pages. CGS Rev.10'09 0 2009 Fic$da Awocmion at Rsvuro e N Frights ReceV rd • rsis software Le lteasas0 to (J. C>laroy - taloa Mswy+out a batty, LLC) ww.4s.asaatioadatk.00m• 23e 20.BROKERS: Neither Seller nor Buyer hae used the services of,or for any other reason owes compensation to,a licensed real 2n estate Broker other than: ,241' (aa Seliera Broker. 242 ((e171pary Name) (Ukargea) 2e9' • 244 • Nom,Tsirrlona.Far,E-rrag les' who 0 is a single agent 0 is a transaction broker 0 has no brokerage relationship and who will be compensated bylii(3eiter 249' D Buyer 0 both parties pursuant to 0 a fisting agreement 0 other(specify) 247' fir (b)Buyer's Broker: Ytt+ 249 Cancer,'Mar* f..ksreee 260' 251 (Adckaas,1ilephons,Fax.buret 25r who O is a single agent O is a transaction broker 0 has no brokerage relationship and who will be compensated by 0 Seller's 25?' Broker 0 Seller El Buyer O both parties pursuant to 0 an MLS offer of compensation 0 other(spooky) 254' • 2ss (colectivey referred toss'Broker')in connection with any act relating to the Property,inducing but not limited to inquiries, 2se introductions,consultations,and negotiations resulting In this transaction.Saler and Buyer agree to Indemnify and hold Broker 257 harmless from and against losses,damages,costs and expenses of any kind,ir>okxfing reasonable attorneys'fees at all levels, 259 and from uebifity to any person,arising from(1)compensation claimed which is inconsistent with the representation in this zs0 Paragraph,f2)enforcement action to cdlect a brokerage fee pursuant to Paragraph 10,(3)arty duty accepted by Broker at the 2e0 request of Seller or Buyer.which is beyond the scope of services regulated by Chapter 475,Florida Statutes,as amended,or(4) 26i recommendations of or services provided and expenses Incurred by any third party whom Broker refers,recommends,or retains 262 for or on behalf of Seer or Buyer. As 21,OPTIONAL CLAUSES: (Check)f any of the following clauses are applicable and are attached as en addendum to this Contract): 264' 0 Arbitration O Seiler Warranty 0 Existing Mortgage 255' 0 Section 1031 Exchange 0 Coastal Construction Control Une 0 Buyer's Attorney Approval Zer O Property Inspection and Repair 0 Flood Area Hazard Zone O Seler's Attorney Approval ter 0 Seller Representations • 0 Seller Financing 41 Other a.. Aaaetaelu. ass 22.ADDITIONAL TERMS: 299' 270- 27r 272' 273' 275' 270' 27r 275' 279.THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT.IF NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD,SEEK THE ADVICE 2i0 OF AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO SIGNING.BROKER ADVISES BUYER AND SELLER TO VERIFY ALL FACTS AND za1 REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THEM AND TO CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL 282 FOR LEGAL ADVICE(FOR EXAMPLE,INTERPRETING CONTRACTS.DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF LAWS ON 223 THE PROPERTY AND TRANSACTION,STATUS OF TITLE,FOREIGN INVESTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, 284 ETC.)AND FOR TAX,PROPERTY CONDITION,ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER ADVICE.BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES 2E15 THAT BROKER DOES NOT OCCUPY THE PROPERTY AND THAT ALL REPRESENTATIONS(ORAL,WRITTEN OR 2#Z OTHERWISE)BY BROKER ARE BASED ON SELLER REPRESENTATIONS OR PUBLIC RECORDS UNLESS BROKER 287 INDICATES PERSONAL VERIFICATION OF THE REPRESENTATION.BUYER AGREES TO RELY SOLELY ON SELLER. zee PROFESSIONAL INSPECTORS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES FOR VERIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY CONDITION, 25 SQUARE FOOTAGE AND FACTS THAT MATERIALLY AFFECT PROPERTY VALUE, 200.8crih►(rr ( )and Saber( )( )ac knowledge receipt or a copy d this Pape,which Is Page 5 of 7 Pages. CC-3 Nay.10,03 v 200e F9oride/aeooi icon ofFL7oae' Al Rights Asssrwd 291 EEO person signing this Contract on behalf of a party that is a business entity represents and warrants to the other party that ' 292 such signatory hes full power and authority to enter into and perform this Contract in accordance with its terms and each person 293 executing this Contract and other documents on behalf of such party has been duly authorized to do so. Date: At. s1- 3( 20 zos aturBuy ) Ct [L 'BY�c , , JT k De-`cAoymeu�+L Tax ID No.: S931(-1"6 `f�$ 207 (Typed or Printed Name ot Buyer) zea'Title: an a.QP� Telephone: Z34^ Z —7WI • 2gv Date: 5a3(Signature of Buyer) NA' Tax ID No.: 332 (Typed or Printed Name of Buyer) 333-Title: Telephone: leen Buyer's Address for purpose of notice: xis"Facsimile: Buckstooe nates335' _ e 13uited liability nR /1 Date: T O 1 0 307 (Signature of Seger) 1 ( /�/� L • 4. Overly law= Tax ID No.: S("��.- 1 - '2 1 3 2 _'3 4 hoc (Typed or Patted Name of Seiler) Telephone: ��� `(Z1]^ r (�` 2— 313'Title: ce-1r ricer Backetnne Estates. LLC, a Fr1.Ot:ida liablity 311'"1" Date: 7-` ((-1 _ t C O 312 (Signature of Smiler} . 1� 2- 313• lticttasl D. line=rs Tax ID No,: G 314 (Typed or Printed Name of Siler) c{ sig*TTrrfle; Co-Manager Taiephone:2-3 ! — 2i3/— `�' "() 1' '� 315•Seller's Address for purpose of notice: G 1 U L t '�-�ft E c7 - a q(D V e Jp.oef 1 &h. IQi„1 G I l� 3,&,:f-C lLo(i ?1/401,s-/ FL 3 y/Dl 31r Facsimile: 2 ` by 1 t 1 T (I E-smelt. The nod&a Asaocisban ot RFX7oaae mak no representation ae to the Iagsl vaiday or adequacy of any provision of this norm In any specific transaction,This associa ecsd bol should not be used In complex transactions or with Wendy,lidera or additions.This forth Is amit*to use by ttr shirrs real estate ilduatiy and is not Mended to barely the Lew u s Rekaort'.Rpuce i a registered colsctis membership meek which may be used only by reel estate licensees who ere numbers ler the NATIONAL ASSCOADON Ol FrfALTCAS.and who subsoil.to ha Code at Ethics. The copyright laws of the tuned States(17 UA Coda)forbid the inerts l:red re froduWort of the tam by any means including taceimte or computerized tome 318`Buyer and Sallef t }( 1 ecknowiedOe receipt of a copy of Me pep,which b Page 7 of 7 Pages. CC-3 Rev.10/09 0 2009 Florida Aseoois ion of feAtioasrr Al Rights Reelr.cd Thin software is lical*ad to-IJ. Cmray - Taloa Seaaaseet a ttaalty. Lacs eevatsaarsastiaeaaak.eas. Bieck lrRidac Phase 1-PM Book 43,Pages 89 through 92 Lot(s)2,4,5,6,9,10, 11, 12,14, 15, 16, 11,20,21,23, 2t,31,34,35,37,38,39,40,42,43,46, 47,48, 52,53,54,55,58,59,62,63,64&67 Phase 11-Plat Book 47,Page 40 Lots)68,69,73,74,75,76,77,78,81, 84,St,89,90,91,92,93 Phase 111-Plat Book 48,Page 71 Lot(s)95,96, 98&99 F. ADDENDUM TO FAR COMMERCIAL CONTRACT BLACK BEAR RIDGE This Addendum to FAR Commercial Contract("Addendum")is made and entered into as of the date set forth on the Contract to which this Addendum is attached("Contract") by and between the parties set forth as Seller and Buyer on said Contract, for the sale and purchase of the following real property: Those Black Bear Ridge subdivision Lots as specifically set forth in the Exhibit to the Commercial Contract(the"Property"). The Contract and this Addendum shall be collectively tcfcued to as the Contract. IN THE EVENT ANY PROVISION OF THIS ADDENDUM CONFLICTS IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ADDENDUM SHALL CONTROL. I. IT IS EXPRESSLY AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE BUYER THAT ANY 17 EXPRESS REPRESENTATIONS,WARRANTIES,OR STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE CONTRACT, WHETHER REFERRING TO THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, OR WHETHER REFERRING TO THE EXISTENCE OF FEATURES, FUNCTIONS OR SERVICES RELATING TO OR SERVING THE PROPERTY (INCLUDING, BY WAY OF EXAMPLE ONLY, WHETHER THE PROPERTY HAS PARTICULAR TYPES OF UTILITY SERVICES), ARE SPECIFICALLY WAIVED, DISCLAIMED, AND RENDERED NULL AND VOID AND THE PROPERTY IS BEING SOLD "AS IS-WHERE IS" AND SELLER MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY AND HAS NO OBLIGATIONS FOR REPAIRS THEREOF. 2. APPROVAL BY IBERIA BANK. Buyer acknowledges that Iberia Bank ("Iberia") has a Mortgage on the Property. The Contract is contingent upon a)the approval of the purchase price, terms of the Contract and the Closing Statement;b)Iberia's agreement to accept a payoff.which is less than the balance due on the loan, and : c) Iberia's release and satisfaction of the mortgage upon receipt of the discounted Closing payoff. Iberia shall have twenty(20)days from the Effective Date to approve the purchase price and contract terms (the "Approval Deadline"). In the event that Iberia has not delivered written acceptance within the Approval Deadline, either party may terminate the Contract by delivering written notice to the other. Buyer's right to terminate shall cease to exist if Seller gives notice to Buyer that Seller waives this contingency or that Lender Approval has been obtained prior to Buyer giving Seller notice of termination. TIME PERIODS. All time periods under the Contract shall commence from the date Seller v% either delivers notice to Buyer of Lender Approval or the date Seller has waived the contingency. Buyer and Seller agree to extend the Closing Date in the Contract, not to exceed ten (10)days if Iberia 1% requires additional time to complete the short sale transaction. 3. ASSIGNMENT OF PERMITS,PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. At Closing,Owner to assign(I)its development rights,density rights,drainage rights,and allocations to Buyer(ii)all architectural, engineering, building and similar plans, specifications,drawings,studies, reports, plats, permits surveys, work product, and the like related to the Land and Improvements, (iii)all permits, approvals, and applications with any governmental authorities pertaining to the Land or any portion thereof, and all sewer taps, allocations and agreements for utilities and utility deposits, if any, (iv) all rights and interests appurtenant to the Land and Improvements arising out of or related to any property owners associations, declaration, reciprocal easement agreement,or other encumbrance affecting title to the Land in connection with a common development scheme with other lands, and other embellishments now or in the future on or appurtenant to the Land, and all other intangible property relating to the Land,if any('Intangible Property")to Buyer. • 4. SETTLEMENT AS FINAL. a. Acceptance of the Deed at Closing shall constitute Buyer's full acceptance of the condition of the Property and a waiver of Buyer's right to object to its condition or assert any claim related to the Property at any time in the future. b. This provision shall survive delivery of the Deed and the Closing. 5. INDEMNIFICATION. a. Buyer agrees to indemnify and fully protect, defend and hold Seller, its officers, -' directors,employees,shareholders,servicers,representatives,agents, attorneys,tenants,brokers,successors and assigns, harmless from and against any and all claims,costs,liens, loss, damages, attorney's fees and expenses of every kind and nature that may be sustained by or made against Seller, its officers, directors, employees, shareholders,servicers, representatives,agents,attorneys,tenants, brokers,successors or assigns, resulting from or arising out of i. 'Inspections or repairs made by Buyer or its agents, employees, contractors, successors or assigns; ii. The imposition of any fine or penalty imposed by any governmental entity resulting from Buyer's failure to timely obtain any permits,approvals,repairs or inspections or to comply with all applicable laws,rules,ordinances and regulations; iii. Claims or amounts due and owing by Seller for taxes, homeowner's association dues or assessment,or any other terms prorated at Closing under this Contract; iv. Buyer or Buyer's tenants, agents or representatives who use or occupy the Property prior to Closing;and v. All indemnities described in this Contract shall survive the Closing or termination of the Contract. BUYER: SELLER: BUCKSTONE ESTATES, LW, a Florida limited liability company By: ii By: Name. DR \ doreti.4-1(ts` Name: ii./l.i'cJi 1 Its: C cl Date: Awywt- 3t ,2o>6 Date: 1—( R:VWojfCrick isotattRFPlektoktodiort to CowfaotBuckNons.BRRdoc 2 • ASSIGNMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND PERMITS THIS ASSIGNMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND PERMITS (this "Assignment") is made and delivered on this 1(4.of December, 2010, by Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (the "Assignor"), to Black Bear Ridge Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability company(the"Assignee"), STATEMENT OF PURPOSE WHEREAS, Assignor has this day transferred its rights title and interest in that certain real property described as: Exhibit"A"attached hereto; and WHEREAS, Assignor desires to transfer to Assignee all of its right, title and interest in and to all construction plans, permits and government entitlements for its benefit including, but not limited to the items set forth on: 'Exhibit"B"attached hereto. WHEREAS: Assignor is the "Developer" in the Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements For Black Bear Ridge recorded on August 30, 2005 in Official Records Book 3879, at Page 1030 and amendments thereto (the "Declaration") and desires to assign its right, title and interest as"Developer" under the Declaration for the purpose of continuing the process of development of the Black Bear Ridge community and the sale of single family residences to third parties. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN and No/100 DOLLARS ($10.00)and other good and valuable consideration,Assignor hereby agrees as follows: 1. Assignor hereby grants, transfers and assigns to Assignee, its successors and assigns, all of Assignor's right, title and interest in, to and under the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements. Notwithstanding the provisions above to the contrary, Assignor shall retain its rights to the escrowed funds on deposit with Collier County pursuant to the Construction, Maintenance and Escrow Agreements for Subdivision Improvements with the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. 2. Assignor warrants and represents to Assignee that: (a) there are no other assignments or conveyances of any of Assignor's rights under the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements to any other person or entity; (b) Assignor has not done any act or failed to do any act which might prevent Assignee from,or limit Assignee in,acting under any of the provisions contained herein; (c) no default exists under the terms of the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements and no prohibition exists in any instrument to which Assignor is a party or by which Assignor is otherwise bound relating to Assignor's right to execute this • Assignment and perform all of Assignor's obligations contained herein. 3. The parties agree that whenever used in this Assignment, the words "Assignor" and "Assignee" shall include their respective heirs, executors, legal representatives, administrators, successors and assigns. The pronouns used herein shall include, when appropriate, either gender and both singular and plural. 4. Assignor represents to Assignee, its successors and assigns, as follows: (a) Assignor is currently the Developer under the Declaration; (b) Assignor has good right, power, and authority to assign and convey its rights as the Developer under the Declaration to Assignee; and (c) this Assignment and Assumption has been duly authorized by Assignor and is executed on behalf of Assignor by a representative duly authorized to execute the same. [SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Assignor has signed and sealed this Assignment or has caused this Assignment to be signed and sealed by duly authorized representatives the day and year first above written. WITNESSES: ASSIGNOR: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC,a Florida limited liability company war/1111 �14-t-7ABy: a Jody K.Vanderbilt Q. Grady Minor Its: Co-Manager Print e (Corporate Seal) Beth D. Lightner Print Name 4050 ,, Jody K.Vanderbilt Michael D. Moore Its: Co-Manager Print Name 47,a7D94L---- Beth D. Lightner (Corporate Seal) Print Name STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /fday of December, 2010 by Q. Grady Minor as Co- Manager of Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company on behalf of the company, who is personally known to me or who has produced (type ofidentification) as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. NOTE: If a type of identification is not inserted in the blank provided, then the person executing this instrument was personally known to me. if the words in the parenthetical "did not" are not circled, then the person executing this instrument did take an oath. OD II yrs N Public` Aii •,;. iwaaRr My Commission Expires: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of December, 2010 by Michael D. Moore as Co- Manager of Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company on behalf of the company, who is personally known to me or who has produced (type of identification) as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. NOTE: If a type of identification is not inserted in the blank provided, then the person executing this instrument was personally known to me. If the words in the parenthetical "did not" are not circled, then the person executing this instrument did take an oath. / 4/244die Notar Pubic D.WIPER • ^o Iss ow.00911r:, My Commission Expires: .311mik ryHbiM::7 MM.IMMO I COMMON I DO OW EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Lots 2,4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20,21, 23, 28, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43,46, 47,48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 67, Black Bear Ridge-Phase 1, a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 43, Pages 89 through 92,of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida_ AND Lots 68, 69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, Black Bear Ridge- Phase 2,a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 47,pages 40 through 42, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. AND Lots 95, 96, 98, 99, Black Bear Ridge - Phase 3, a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 48, pages 71 and 72, of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. EXHIBIT B LIST OF ENTITLEMENTS, PERMITS, & PLANS • Zoning/Entitlement o Wolf Creek RPUD(Ord. 03-45); (Ord. 07-46) • Construction Plans& Plat o Collier County-Black Bear Ridge—Phase I Plans& Plat(AR-9984) o Collier County - Black Bear Ridge—Phase II Plans&Plat(AR-11262) o Collier County -Black Bear Ridge—Phase 111 Plans& Plat(AR-11262) • Permits o South Florida Water Management- Water Use Permit(11-02343-W) • Applications (#040629-7); (#040901-6); (#051206-12); o South Florida Water Management - Environmental Resource Permit (11- 02332-P) ■ Applications (#030328-10); (#05819-20) • Pre-paid Road Impact Fee Credits o $131,670 of Collier County pre-paid COA credits (as of November 2nd, 2010) 3467972 OR: 3635 PG: 1672 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 09/01/2004 at 10:13AM DWIGHT B. BIOCI, CLERK This instrument was prepared RIC FEE 239.50 without an opinion of title and INDEIING 3.00 0 after recording return to: Retn: I Gregory L.Urbancic,Esq. G00DLETTB COLEMAN IT AL Ni Goodlette,Coleman&Johnson,P.A. 4001 TANIANI TR N #300 4001 Tarniami Trail North,Suite 300 NAPLES FL 34103 Naples,Florida 34103 (239)435-3535 (space above this line for recording data) COST SHARING AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHARED ACCESS ROAD THIS COST SHARING AG' ,•,,;p_".I DEVELOPMENT OF A SHARED ACCESS ROAD(this"Agreement" - - entered-..313 ,33..\- of t6 , 2004, by and among the following: (i)Wpf , Estates,LLC,a •:d -lintited liability c pany("Wolf Creek Estates"); (ii) William L. Hooves, as,` ustee_.o(,the Fallen Timb°e{s Ld Trust dated November 5, 2003 ("Hoover/Fallen Timbers"); (iii) Mar 33— indner, as-'I' ustee '�nde unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D January 4, 1999 ("Lindner/Tr/1st r...0.,- it. L. .•• '• . st , under unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D May 21, 1999 ("Lin.A er/' " 2" ( : i o+ rfrk es, ',i,LC, a Florida limited liability company(`Buckstone Estates ). ': WITNESSETI THA ry io WHEREAS, the parties Ii[ own adjacent real Ipe) Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,Collier County,Flo • • WHEREAS, the parties hereto of efol 'g properties which are the subject of this Agreement,with said individual properties being legally described on Exhibit"A"attached hereto and made a part hereof: OWNER: PARCEL: Lindner/Trust 1 Parcel 1 Lindner/Trust 2 Parcel 2 Wolf Creek Estates Parcel 4 Wolf Creek Estates Parcel 5 Wolf Creek Estates Parcel 6 Buckstone Estates Parcel 7 Hoover/Fallen Timbers Parcel 8(west half) Buckstone Estates Parcel 8(east half) Buckstone Estates Parcel 9 Lindner/Trust 1 Parcel 10 Buckstone Estates Parcel 11 1 , OR: 3635 PG: 1673 WHEREAS, Parcels 1, Parcel 2, and Parcels 4 through 12, inclusive, are depicted on the illustration attached hereto as Exhibit"B"(said parcels shall sometimes collectively be referred to herein as the"Parcels");and WHEREAS, Dania Luisa Mederos, as Trustee of the Dania Luisa Mederos Land Trust dated August 15, 2000 (who is not a party to this agreement) is the owner of that certain real property in Collier County, Florida legally described as follows: The South 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida("Parcel 3"); and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to formalize an agreement with respect to the construction of an access road generally along the north-south half-section line in Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County; and WHEREAS, Exhibit "B" also depicts the general, proposed location of the access road with the various segment points on the access road being labeled with alphabetical designations. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,the parties hereto do hereby . e as follows: ti- r 1. Recitals. The abov- ',. e true and c. .'�d,incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Pending Transaction' Future-Development. ' - intent of this Section is for the parties to disclose various pending transactio �'ns — - ma or nay not clo and development petitions involving or affecting the Parcels. Unlesa c. . ;,,,, . s. -x . disclosures contained in this Section shall not be construed as a requ r- t o •: e op;a .a-ti 1 .1 o$Yn anylparticular manner. (a) Parcel 10 is �• t. c . - . U th\ th '�*¢ver, or assignee, with a petition request to Collier County to de�- a specialtyretail/offi•_ are o arcel. P \ " ' , C) / (b) This Agreement '"41 .- disclosed by the 1 l Anvolved in the transaction to the purchaser described in subsection(a r.. : : this Agre i.- : be disclosed to any other prospective purchaser of any one or more of the Par - st[/-L c I -C' (c) Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 are expected but not required to be developed as a multi-family project. (d) Parcel 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6 are expected but not required to be developed as a single- family project. (e) Parcel 7, Parcel 8, Parcel 9, and Parcel 11 are expected but not required to be developed as a single-family project. 3. Mederos Parcel (Parcel 3). Parcel 3 is owned by Dania Luisa Mederos, as Trustee of the Dania Luisa Mederos Land Trust dated August 15, 2000 ("Mederos") and Mederos is not a party to this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be construed as affecting or encumbering Parcel 3 except under the circumstances provided under Section 6(g). Further,this Agreement shall not be construed in a manner so as to provide any third-party rights for Mederos. 4. General Development Standard. All Parcels shall be developed in a high quality manner commensurate with the projects recently constructed or being constructed concurrently in the 2 011: 3635 PG: 1674 Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road corridors, located between Livingston Road and Collier Boulevard. The Parcels are permitted to have differing land uses but the actual land uses shall be compatible with each other. The Parcels shall be developed using a similar architectural theme along the access roads, quality buffering and screening between the differing land uses, and common site design techniques. All Parcels shall be designed and developed to minimize any negative impacts on abutting and neighboring Parcels. 5. Zoning. Each owner (and the owner's successor, assign, and successor in title) agrees that it shall not object to any rezoning and/or development consistent with the following provisions: (a) Parcel 10 may be rezoned and developed for specialty retail and office land uses. The most westerly 175 feet of Parcel 10 shall be designed and developed only for offices, banks, drug stores, sit-down restaurants, retail shops, and similar intensity commercial uses, and shall not be permitted to have gas stations, convenience stores,fast food restaurants,and stand alone bars or lounges. (b) Parcel 1, Parcel 2, and Parcels 4 through 9, inclusive, may be developed for residential use. Said parcels have been rezoned to the Wolf Creek PUD, Collier County Ordinance No. 03-45 (hereinafter "Wolf Creek PUD") and shall be developed according to the development standards within the Wolf Creek PUD. Any owner of one of_rthese-parcels.tnay apply for a PUD Amendment to the Wolf Creek PUD through Collier County for, . i lio in "purposes without written permission of the remaining owner(s) of the Wolf Cr property:(i pnd moderate intensity changes to said owner's own parcel or(ii)to incot 'additional property i or, ne Wolf Creek PUD,including,without limitation, Parcel 3, Parcel 11, a d/o tllte-neighborinnpareel wit Section 34 owned by Comcast. Any amendment to the Wolf CreeksP> s — ,int9in„the Thain p .tte principal uses and the same or substantially the same develgmyt i f eek PUD at the time of such amendment. Further, any amend ` , sh• -. b • d=s i o °.1 velopment consultants experienced in Collier County PUD rezoni : • a ",j! , ocesss. t ; :- I (c) The owner of 1 or Parcel 2 have tlgh at . e,as to said owner's parcels,to request a rezoning to allow dth ,ment for resident u_s s • hes, private schools, child care facilities,and/or adult living facilt (d) The owner of Parcel 10`•• il ',s \rte, as to said owner's parcel, to request a rezoning to allow development for residenha - • - • s,private schools, child care facilities, and/or adult living facilities. (e) The owner of Parcel 11 has the right at any time, as to said owner's parcel, to request a rezoning to allow development for residential uses,churches,and/or child care facilities. (f) Any 3-story buildings on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be setback a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet from the North-South Road (as hereinafter defined)between Points "A" through "D" as shown on Exhibit"B"attached hereto and made a part hereof. Additionally, any buildings on Parcel 1 or Parcel 2 shall have tile, metal, or wood roofs, and either a carport or garage for each residential unit. None of the Parcels shall be developed for Affordable Housing, as defined within the Collier County Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance,as amended from time to time. 6. Design,Permitting,and Construction of North-South Access Road. (a) General. The parties intend for a 2-lane north-south access road to be constructed generally in the location shown on Exhibit "B" from Point "A" to Point "F" (the "North-South Road"). All references herein to a particular "Point" shall mean and refer to those labels on Exhibit "B". The 3 OR: 3635 PG: 1675 North-South Road shall be constructed to then-current Collier County road standards, shall include utility improvements of sufficient size and capacity to serve all Parcels,and shall be designed and constructed so as to be shared access road intended to serve three (3) moderately upscale residential communities. The North-South Road shall include such related facilities as required by Collier County which may include, without limitation, sidewalks; turn lanes; curbs; entry features; signage; median improvements; lights, light poles and related facilities; stormwater drainage lines, pipes, and related facilities; landscaping; and other utility and infrastructure improvements. All segments of the North-South Road shall be designed and constructed in a consistent manner so as to be compatible with one another. (b) Intersection Improvements. The owners of the Parcels shall each pay a proportionate share, based upon each parcel's acreage as shown on Exhibit "C"attached hereto and made a part hereof, of the design, permitting and construction costs for all North-South Road/Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection improvements such as turn lanes,bridges/culverts, arterial level street lighting, and a possible traffic signal, located approximately between Points "A-1" to "A-2" ("Intersection Improvements"). If a traffic signal is required after completion and payment of the costs of the Intersection Improvements by the owners of the Parcels,the future costs for the traffic signal shall be shared as shown on Exhibit"C". (c) Segment 1. The owners of Parcel 1, Parcel 2, Parcel 9 and Parcel 10 shall be equally responsible for the design, permitting and construction-costs of the North-South Road between Point"A- 2" (a point on the southern property li f` el€ E. :-I 10) and either Point "D" or such other endpoint between Point "C" and Pef ' a be . •„'. by Collier County (the "Segment 1 Endpoint"). The design and cot -0110 for said portion of - `1 o1Qh-South Road shall include all turn lanes required by Collier CountyJTranipertafian,S, -Services during t•eir review of the construction drawings for this portion of the road. Th1portion=d€the,No__ oo oad between Point"A-2"and the Segment 1 Endpoint together with the Int'rse r: A ..e f ...- .+: , imd referred to herein as "Segment 1". Design and permitting fort Segtnt o„'l end f o 2004 by Buckstone Estates. A copy of the Preliminary Open o. 6. ' ob .1= C•sti r:p;ared i !. . adp Minor & Associates, P.A. for construction of Segment 1 (w,. . : .oin 6 'os".. -'!") i—, vc44,1ereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit"D". Said exhibit is a :, _ for informational p',...se` aid„, er costs and improvements detailed therein are preliminary and su.a . modification. A- s .yio 't ;estimated design, permitting, and related costs prepared by Q. Grad `'r,P.E. for Segment endpoint of Point"D") is attached hereto and made a part hereof as EAUC,1 " Said exhibi ed for informational purposes and the costs detailed therein are preliminary 'su$j . ;— 'a .' 1._,_y:--:-------- (d) Segment 2. The portion of the North-South Road between the Segment 1 Endpoint and Point"F"shall be sometimes referred to herein as"Segment 2". In the event that the Segment 1 Endpoint is the same as Point "D", the owners of Parcel 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6 shall be equally responsible for the design, permitting and construction costs of the North-South Road for"Segment 2". In the event the Segment 1 Endpoint lies south of Point"D",the costs shall be divided as follows: (i)the owners of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall pay for fifty percent (50%) of the design, permitting and construction costs of the North-South Road between the Segment 1 Endpoint and Point "D"; (ii) the owner of Parcel 9 shall pay for the other fifty percent(50%)of the design,permitting and construction costs of the North-South Road between the Segment 1 Endpoint and Point "D"; and (iii) the owners of Parcel 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6 shall be equally responsible for the remaining design, permitting and construction costs for Segment 2. The design and construction for Segment 2 shall include all turn lanes required by Collier County Transportation Services during their review of the construction drawings for this portion of the North- South Road, excluding any turn lanes on Parcel 2 or Parcel 9 that would be paid for by the owner of Parcel 2 or Parcel 9,as the case may be. (e) Dedication to Collier County. Upon completion of the construction of the North-South Road, the owners of the Parcels agree the North-South Road shall be dedicated to Collier County unless 4 011: 3635 PG: 1676 either (i) all owners agree in writing that the North-South Road should remain private or (ii) the dedication of the North-South Road is not accepted by Collier County. In the event the owners of the Parcels agree to maintain the North-South Road as a private road, the written agreement among the owners shall make a provision for the on-going maintenance and repair of the North-South Road and a means for sharing the costs and expenses of the same. In the event the North-South Road including any of the appurtenances thereto, or any portion thereof) is not accepted by Collier County, the owners shall enter into a written agreement regarding the on-going maintenance and repair thereof. All owners agree to promptly execute such documentation and provide such information as may be requested or required by Collier County to complete the dedication. (f) Maintenance of North-South Road. Any Developer (as hereinafter defined) completing construction of the North-South Road or any segment thereof shall maintain and repair, in keeping with all governmental permits and approvals, such portion of the North-South Road, until such time as the North-South Road is dedicated to (and such dedication is accepted by) Collier County, and Collier County accepts the North-South Road for maintenance, in accordance herewith. The owners shall be obligated to reimburse the Developer (as the case may be) for their pro rata share of the costs and expenses incurred by the Developer in connection with the maintenance and repair of the North-South Road (or portion thereof) for so long as the Developer is obligated to maintain and repair same as provided herein. Each owner's pro rata shareof-the-maintenance and repair cost shall be the same as each owner's share for the initial constructioni f (ia .• .•on. Each owner shall deliver its pro rata share of such maintenance and repair``e .f the Deve o•=� r , ..i five (5) business days of receipt of a bill therefore from the Developpr.Oethe event that theNprthouth Road (including any of the appurtenances thereto, or any portioiyft ereof)--is not accepted bk,Colher County as a public road and/or for maintenance within one (1) year .•e date o`f`c pletioin of\the North-South Road, then the Developer shall no longer bez'reso• sig r:r ar o the North-South Road and the owners of the Parcels shall agreel p•tn - F e o ma foz; future maintenance, which method may include, without limitatin N'- •`• _'• F f coimuni�. 4ev lQrpent district pursuant to Section 190, Florida Statutes ("CDD" O i .rfira`'a -cff a-inatter he. . i association("MHOA"). In the event a CDD is formed for th lr•ose of maintaining, d r.•aihie North-South Road, the CDD shall have the responsibility fo \-, rming the maintetf e&ndir work and paying the cost and expense of the same. Notwiths... • anything to the co ,the CDD shall only have financial responsibility pertaining to the lan. i • benefited an d by the CDD. The CDD shall have no financial obligations to or for any p el . 0toCDD. The CDD shall have the authority to collect for such cost and expense in ma'i '•114 e-7N6rth-South Road through assessments or such other collection mechanism as may be authorized pursuant to Section 190,Florida Statutes. In the event a MHOA is formed, the MHOA shall have the responsibility for performing the maintenance and repair work and paying the cost and expense of the same. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary,the MHOA shall only have financial responsibility pertaining to the land which is benefited and burdened by the MHOA. The MHOA shall have no fmancial obligations to or for any parcels not subjected to the MHOA. The MHOA shall have the authority to collect for such cost and expense in maintaining the North-South Road through assessments. (g) Mederos Property (Parcel 3). Parcel 3, owned by Mederos, is not included within the scope of this Agreement. It is agreed that in the event that one or more signatories hereto(individually or collectively) or Prime Investors and Developers, Inc. acquire Parcel 3 prior to construction of Segment 2 of the North-South Road, then said party will cooperate by promptly granting such easements as may be necessary to develop Segment 2 of the North-South Road. The alignment of the North-South Road shall thereafter be adjusted onto Parcel 3, with the width of the road on Parcel 3 being the greater of the following: (i) thirty (30) feet or (ii) one-half of the width of the North-South Road as proposed for the segment of the North-South Road encompassing Parcel 3 and Parcel 8. The conveyance of such an easement by such owner(s)prior to Collier County's approval of the roadway drawings and plans for the 5 OR: 3635 PG: 1677 construction of Segment 2 shall be deemed to be the payment of said owner(s)fair share of the cost of the North-South Road with respect to Parcel 3. 7. Wolf Creek PUD. (a) Allocation. The Wolf Creek PUD encompasses Parcel 1, Parcel 2, Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive, and Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. The Wolf Creek PUD permits 591 residential dwelling units. Unless otherwise provided herein, density shall not be transferred from one parcel to another within the Wolf Creek PUD without prior written permission of the owner of the property losing density. The Wolf Creek PUD allocated the 591 residential units as follows and as shown on Exhibit"F"attached hereto and made a part hereof: Parcel 1-64 units; Parcel 7-41 units; and all other parcels in the PUD- 81 units each. Upon the execution of this Agreement, 41 dwelling units each shall be automatically transferred from each of Parcels 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6, at no cost, to Parcel 1, with a total resulting transfer of 123 units to Parcel 1. Accordingly, the number of residential units allocated to Parcel 1 under the Wolf Creek PUD shall be 187. (b) Option to Purchase Additional Density. The owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ("Purchaser") shall have the option to purchase (in addition to the density allocated to Parcel 1 and Parcel pursuant to subsection (a) hereof) from the owner of Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive, ("Seller") up to 92 dwelling units which have been allocated-. ction (a) hereof to Parcels 7 through 9, rp inclusive. Said option may be exe " ,• 1' asci. re than two transactions on or before December 31, 2005 ("Expiration 1 ` ' e purchase pn .., ch individual dwelling unit shall be $500.00. In the event Purchaser elec o exercise this option, cha shall,on or before the Expiration Date, notify Seller of the number of u''i ts:: o be-pureha.S�1. Clo 'ng f any such purchase of dwelling units shall occur within 20 days of/Seller's re notice,from chaser. The purchase price shall be paid in cash, wired funds, or A cas+ cr;a `„o,t. j: an`office in Collier County, Florida or such other method as may be a+ tabl t� 1 ", lir' ole'discretion. Seller shall have the sole discretion to determine fikc - )141lmg i e'a4signed. Purchaser shall pay all costs associated with the • . er of dwelling units. This o`'do 7l terminate on midnight of the Expiration Date and be of no a orce and effect. ' • y / (c) Contingency. In 7.i t any statute, law' upince, resolution, rule, or regulation is adopted and enforced by the state, u y • • .' �tal entity (or any agency or department thereof) that would have the effect of .w,•:. ,' l 1 jig-the number of dwelling units that can be constructed within the Wolf Creek PUD (in its'en''fire yy),the parties agree that Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be collectively allocated 33%of any such temporary allocation and Parcels 4 through 9 shall be allocated 67% of any such temporary allocation; provided, however, that such temporary allocation shall not have the effect of reallocating density among the parcels. For the purposes of this paragraph only, the term "temporary"shall mean for a period of no more than twelve(12)months. 8. Native Vegetation. Unless otherwise agreed by the owners of the various Parcels, all Parcels within the Wolf Creek PUD shall be designed to stand alone. All Parcels with indigenous native vegetation, as determined by Collier County, will be required to preserve or replant 25% of such native vegetation, as described in Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, or in the event of a repeal of said section, such other section of the Collier County Land Development Code controlling the same subject matter. Each of the Parcels shall provide for its own native vegetation requirements as shown within the Collier County approved environmental impact study that was submitted in conjunction with the Wolf Creek PUD rezoning petition, unless otherwise agreed to by any one or more Parcels owners. Parcels providing in excess of 25% native vegetation can transfer such credit to another Parcel under different ownership only upon written agreement of the property owner transferring the excess credit. 6 OR: 3635 PG: 1678 9. Access Easements/Signature Entry Feature. In order to construct the North-South Road,various road right-of-way easements will be required from the owners of the Parcels. To the extent not previously provided,the owners of the Parcels agree to convey the easements described in this section at no cost to the other owners within twenty(20)days of a receipt of a written request from the Developer (as defined in Section 11 below), and further agree to the conditions and limitations described in this section. (a) Parcel 2/Parcel 8. The owner of Parcel 2 shall provide a non-exclusive 30-foot wide permanent road right-of-way easement along the east 30 feet of Parcel 2 for the benefit of all Parcels. The owner of Parcel 8 shall provide a non-exclusive 30-foot wide permanent road right-of-way easement along the west 30 feet of Parcel 8 for the benefit of all Parcels. The owner of Parcel 9 shall provide a non-exclusive 30-foot wide permanent road right-of-way easement along the west 30 feet of Parcel 9 for the benefit of all Parcels. Where the minimum road width is required by Collier County Transportation Services to be wider than 60 feet, the easement width provided shall be increased the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the North-South Road, with the center of the roadway remaining on the half section line where possible(unless the Developer controls the land on both sides of the roadway, in which case the Developer shall determine in its sole discretion where to locate the centerline of the North-South Road for said portions); provided, however, that where a wider road right-of-way is needed to provide a turn lane into a particular project the additional road right-of-way easement area shall come from the parcel needing such turn lane. > (b) Parcel 1/Parcel 10., int"A-2"to the owner of Parcel 1 shall provide a non-exclusive 42-foot wide permaii t/rooad right-of-way ease t along the east 42 feet of Parcel 1 and the owner of Parcel 10 shall provide noirexclutsive_ ene 42- opt widpermanent road right-of-way easement along the western 42 feet of Parcel/10,bac- ..e r the pbl*of all ??rce1s. From Point"B"to Point "C", the roadway width is intended to tit.. G v : ,.+ •, ..* 'ght-pf--way to 60-foot road right-of- way. The owner of Parcel 1 Shall'i5r. 'd" o : - • e - . t` 42jfoot wide permanent road right- of-way easement along the eat„ to '2 et .f aitci 1 t' and e •wi�,gf Parcel 10 shall provide a non- exclusive 30-foot to 42-foot v ki "en •f--wi .,LerwiX along the western 30 to 42 feet of Parcel 10, each for the ben- ,. all Parcels. The ac•1.1 dthh,.ctf )fich road right-of-way shall be as determined by Collier County\ . ...rtation Services ; , • - ` view of the roadway plans for Segment 1. Where the minimum •,+° 'dth is required by r) & unty Transportation Services to be wider than contemplated herein,the -ajj i.- it width provid-: 6:4'w/eel 1 and Parcel 10 shall be increased the minimum amount necessary to acc..1t, ,is• r- , i 'Road. (c) Purpose of Easements. These easements provided for in this section are for the purpose of providing unrestricted ingress and egress for all of the Parcels and shall also be for the construction of the North-South Road, including all necessary or required utilities, sidewalks, water management facilities,landscaping,and signage. (d) Signature Entry Feature. (i) Permitted Owners/Location. The easements described in subsection 9(b) of this Agreement (or in a separate easement if desired by the owner of Parcel 1 or Parcel 10) shall permit the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, the owner of Parcels 7 through 9, or the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ("Permitted Owners") to construct a signature entry feature (hereinafter"Signature Entry Feature") upon no more than 400 square feet in area and located north of where the North-South Road intersects with Vanderbilt Beach Road. For purposes of this section, the term Permitted Owners shall be deemed to include and mean, as to each individual Permitted Owner, said Permitted Owner's successor, assign, or successor in title. The Signature Entry Feature may be constructed at any time subsequent to the commencement of construction of the North-South Road between Points "A-2" and "C". The Signature Entry Feature may be located, at the sole discretion of the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, in either the 7 OR: 3635 PG: 1679 North-South Road median or in wing walls along each side of the North-South Road. (ii) Constructing Owner. The owner constructing the Signature Entry Feature shall be referred to herein as the Constructing Owner. Any of the Permitted Owners may become the Constructing Owner, subject to the provisions of this paragraph. Buckstone Estates, because of its designation as the Developer of Segment 1, shall have the initial option to become the Constructing Owner. Buckstone Estates may become the Constructing Owner by delivering written notice to the other Permitted Owners of its desire to be the Constructing Owner no less than thirty-five (35) days prior to commencing construction of Segment 1 of the North-South Road. If Buckstone Estates shall either (1) fail to commence construction of Segment 1 (for any reason) on or before April 1, 2005 or (2) fail to commence construction of the Signature Entry Feature on or before April 1, 2005, then the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall have the right to become the Constructing Owner. In such an event, if the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall elect to be the Constructing Owner, said owner shall deliver written notice to the other Permitted Owners on or before April 30, 2005. If such an election is not made by the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, the Permitted Owners shall thereafter enter into a separate written agreement specifying the owner who shall assume the duty as Constructing Owner; provided all other terms of this section shall be unchanged. Any notice required under this paragraph shall include a sketch showing the intended Signature Entry Feature and a cost estimate (including a 10% contingency) for the design and construction costs of the Signa e'-E"r gtur-. ()- GO Design. Qig t ff Entry Fea +. -v: be properly permitted through Collier County and any proposed constr ' m wing walls shall b- .esigied to not unreasonably block pre- existing signage on Parcel 1 or P3rce}� from w of motorist traveling on Vanderbilt Beach Road or the North-South Road to be cor}stru ted•l uts nt t• is—A ti eement. Pn*r to commencing construction of the Signature Entry Feature, e C. 'l. . • w, �+,� . .. 1the other Permitted Owners with a copy of the design plans for the E,•. -. : , lkkc ,Aesign plans shall show the location of the proposed Signature Entry 1"ea 'di e.kE g .- r •,ee t+ er jhalll h4u4len(10)days after receipt of said design plans to review and a... . e`'the s• - -, wli ' prosht;t-ii'ot be unreasonably withheld or conditioned. If any Permitted M has not or does n , .espbn 3Atct,Jhe Constructing Owner in writing within such ten(10)day period,•S‘aliVermitted Owner sha e liee !to have approved such plans. (iv) Parcel 1 an ale 2..Option Out. er of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall have the option to opt out of participation ' tl e/ ,-. �.-s tt Out..--,w"` as described in this paragraph. The owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall each .•;`• .•_ enstructing Owner within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice from the Constructing Owner under subsection (ii) above if it desires to opt out of participation in the construction of the Signature Entry Feature and use of any portion of the sign face that would otherwise be allocated to said parcels. The failure of the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 to respond with said thirty(30)day period shall be deemed a conclusive election by such owner to participate. In the event the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 opts out of participation, then the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive, shall have the option to allow the owner of Parcel 10 to participate instead. In such a case and with the agreement of the owner of Parcel 10, all further references to Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 in this Section shall mean and refer to Parcel 10. (v) Sign Face(s). The following conditions shall apply to the sign face(s): (a) the sign face(s) shall be equally divided among the parcels as defined in this subsection. In the event the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 elect to participate, the sign face(s) shall be equally divided into thirds,with one-third of the sign face(s)for the project on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2; one- third of the sign face(s) for the project on Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive; and one-third of the sign face(s) for the project on Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive. In the event the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 elect not to participate (and Parcel 10 is not substituted), the sign face(s) shall be equally divided, with one-half of 8 011: 3635 PG: 1680 the sign face(s) for the project on Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive and one-half of the sign face(s) for the project on Parcels 4 through 6,inclusive; and (b) each non-constructing owner not opting out of the shared signage shall notify the Constructing Owner of its project name for the sign(s) within thirty (30) days of notice from the Constructing Owner or the Constructing Owner shall leave the sign face blank for any non-constructing owner not timely notifying the Constructing Owner of its project name; and (c) each of share of the sign face(s) shall be equally visible to both westbound and eastbound motorists traveling along Vanderbilt Beach Road. (vi) Cost. The costs for design, permitting, and construction of the Signature Entry Feature shall be shared as described in this paragraph. In the event the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 elect to participate, the costs shall be divided as follows: one-third of the total costs shall be paid by the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive; one-third by the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2; and one-third by the owners of Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. In the event the owners of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 elect not to participate (and Parcel 10 is not substituted), the costs shall be divided as follows: one-half of the total costs shall be paid by the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive; and one-half by the owners of Parcels 7 through 9,inclusive. - "` c- R C�� r�..., (vii) Payment. Th' •• • cting Own- ••4111 •vide the non-constructing owners with a detailed billing statement for their".:!• • ction cost within fo rve45)days after the completion of the initial construction and installatio/i of . Signature Entry Feature, :< d each of said non-constructing owners shall remit payment to the ConttrucfingiO r ; , t (30) digs'f the receipt of such bill. If any such bill(s) is not paid within said .0 6- -• t all such invoices together with interest thereon at nine percent • � . i ('/o s l ,‘,.5o t linon said non-constructing owner's property,unless and until paid; (J •e • ..• g I t; ma r.. or each such lien in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida agai i4,,se e • co cti-. , er L•.3• �5'znd bring legal action against the non-constructing owner for t1n-constructing own.�.'s cons• c'titin costs; and (c) may, at the Constructing Owner's option, fo toany such lien des •i.• ay•'70;fn the same manner as a mortgage lien on real property, and interest> is nd reasonable attome ' 1Eee `of any such action will be added to the amount of any such lien, and sh .verable in 1= - :, Constructing Owner prevails in any such action. T F C�R(. (viii) Maintenance. The Signature Entry Feature shall be maintained and repaired from time to time,which maintenance and repair shall be performed in accordance with all governmental permits and approvals. The Constructing Owner (or its successor or assign) shall be responsible for such maintenance and repair, unless otherwise agreed among the owners participating in the Signature Entry Feature. The costs for any such maintenance or repair to the Signature Entry Feature shall be shared in the same manner described in Section 9(d)(v) above relating to construction costs. Any owner may assign its obligations for payment of such maintenance and repair costs to a property owners' association or condominium association formed with respect to such owner's parcel(s). The Constructing Owner may assign its obligation for maintenance and repair of the Signature Entry Feature to a property owners' association or condominium association formed with respect to the Constructing Owner's parcel(s). (e) Directional Signage. At the request of the owner of Parcels 4 though 6, inclusive, or the owners of Parcels 7 though 9, inclusive, the owner of Parcel 10 shall provide the owners of Parcels 4 through 6 and Parcels 7 through 9 with a non-exclusive sign easement having an area of four(4) square feet for the purpose of erecting and sharing a directional sign along the eastern side of the North-South Road,where the North-South Road intersects with the access road into Parcel 10. The easement shall be in a location such that that the directional sign is easily visible to northbound motorists. 9 OR: 3635 PG: 1681 10. Stormwater Management. Water management for the section of the North-South Road located between Point "A" and Point "C" shall be provided on Parcel 10. Water management for the section of the North-South Road located between Point "C" and Point "E" shall be provided on Parcel 8 or Parcel 9. Water management for the North-South Road located between Point"E"and Point"F" shall be provided on Parcel 4, Parcel 5, or Parcel 6. Any owner whose parcel has the responsibility for water management under this section may redirect said responsibility to another property through a separate written agreement without the consent of the other parties hereto; provided, however,no such agreement shall release said owner of its obligations under this section. 11. Developer. (a) Identification of Developer. The North-South Road may be constructed either in a single phase or in two separate phases. If the manner of construction is in two separate phases,the first phase of construction shall be Segment 1 and the second phase of construction shall be Segment 2. The phases may be developed concurrently. Any of the owners of Parcel 1, Parcel 2, or Parcels 4 through 10, inclusive, may individually or collectively be the developer of the North-South Road or Segment 1 of the North-South Road. If, however, the North-South Road is developed in phases, only the owner for Parcel 4, Parcel 5, or Parcel 6 may develop Segment 2. The term "Developer" as used herein shall mean and refer to any such owner which elects to cons, a f the North-South Road. The owners agree and acknowledge that Buckstone Es te` s 'r is for M � Segment 1. Buckstone Estates has submitted roadway plans to Collier in connection ,• arp4t.submittal for its properties. If at any time Buckstone Estates ceases(fo ason)its pursuit of the •1- s for the construction of Segment 1 at any time prior to March 1, 2905,r iRkstone Estate shall notify the other owners of the same within twenty (20) days and thereafter another o -, . assume the roe of,the Developer of Segment 1 by notifying the other owners in writi�'• • ►• • - tone Estates fails(for any reason)to obtain permits for the construction, ,e - t [ o, 1.e •,r,, ch 1, 2005 or fails (for any reason) to commence construction of S - o•, •r b.'o e • ;ril 1,�►005,!artgther owner may elect to be the Developer of Segment I and n. ' th- other •',II-rs i ,. `tr of the same. In any case where Buckstone Estates shall cease ti?,.ke a Developer of Sen•eat I aid. Other owner seeks to become the Developer of Segment 1, such iowner shall within enty, ?�,. �days of assuming the role of the Developer of Segment 1 promp a burse Buckstone s -Lf the new Developer's share (see Section 6(c) of this Agreement) o sign and permi texpended by Buckstone Estates for Segment 1. Upon receipt of such pa r t,B t ••° -s..itlsall promptly provide the new Developer with copies of its materials related to the - ,o.•g;and construction of Segment 1. Wolf Creek Estates shall be the Developer of Segment 2; provided, however that Buckstone Estates, with the written consent of Wolf Creek Estates, may instead be the Developer of Segment 2. The Developer shall be responsible for the design, permitting, and construction of those portion(s) of the North South Road (including the related improvements) it will be constructing, with the costs of which to be shared as described herein. The name of the North-South Road shall be Pristine Drive unless Collier County shall rescind its prior approval. (b) Design Plans/Permitting. The North-South Road shall be designed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. If the North-South Road is being constructed in phases, both phases shall be designed and constructed in a consistent manner so as to be compatible with one another. All plans and specifications for the North-South Road shall be prepared by a licensed and reputable engineering firm. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining any permits or governmental approvals necessary or appropriate to construct the North-South Road ("Road Permits and Approvals"). All owners of the Parcels will cooperate in good faith with the Developer and the Developer is hereby expressly authorized by the other parties hereto to apply for or to pursue in the Developer's name (or in the names of the owners of the Parcels or both as the Developer may deem desirable)the Road Permits and Approvals which may be required to construct the North-South Road. The owners of the Parcels further agree to promptly execute, 10 OR: 3635 PG: 1682 acknowledge, consent to,join in, and deliver all documents, applications and other papers which may be necessary to make such applications or to obtain the Road Permits and Approvals. (c) Development of Segment 1. Upon completion of the final plans and specifications for Segment 1, and approval of the same by Collier County,the Developer shall furnish such finals plans and specifications for the construction of Segment 1,including sidewalks, accompanying utilities,landscaping, signage (except for the signature entry feature), and other related improvements to the other owners for their review. No sooner than fifteen(15) days after such plans and specifications have been delivered to the other owners, the Developer shall seek bids for the construction and installation of Segment 1 from not less than three (3) qualified, licensed contractors previously experienced in Collier County as road contractors. At the sole option of the Developer, the Developer may also seek up to two (2) bids from qualified, licensed contractors not previously experienced in Collier County. When such bids are solicited by the Developer, the Developer shall notify the other owners and provide them with a copy of the request for bid and a list of the contractors from whom bids are being solicited. When the bids are returned, the Developer shall provide copies of all completed bids to the other owners. In the event the Developer selects any complete bidder other than the lowest complete bidder,the Developer shall provide the other owners with its reason(s) for selecting the applicable bidder, and the other owners shall have the right of approval with regard thereto, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. If any owner fails to notify the Developer in writing of their disapproval of the selected bidder within five (5) business days after t cif r}otire�thereof from the Developer, such selection shall be deemed to have been appr b' .•" ri Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the other own •'' ' ave no right • • ptsoy al if the Developer selects the low complete bidder. (_ N No less than thirty-five.(35da} • to •mmetng con truc on of Segment 1, the Developer shall provide the owners of the oth- :•.4e : ' * • -.6 , IM.7ng. z Owners") with the following: (i) a cost estimate for the construction a, _. 1, in,1 i d o . '1' of tin cy (hereinafter "Road Plan"); and (ii) a breakdown of the cbstd ti iao e• •i Pr e P ela /q Bach of the Parcels, "Individual Construction Cost"). The No h�n_ ;, et* '11 a (35) days from the receipt of said materials from Developer ce said owner's Ind 4ual�onStrrti, ion Cost into an escrow account with an escrow agent designate` e Developer, whit �s • , j a t shall be an attorney licensed in the State of Florida. The cons of`o funds deposited with-i -row agent shall be available to the Developer through customary constta{ctfi�.-draws. No later K 1100y-five(45)days after the Developer's receipt of a certificate of completion, qe1�t'e�99-le the construction fund account. Any excess funds shall be returned in a pro rata ma s )pon the Individual Construction Costs paid. In the event of a shortage of construction funds to cover the costs and expenses of the Developer in constructing Segment 1 (other than due to non-payment by a Non-Constructing Owner), the Non- Constructing Owners shall be responsible for paying their pro rata share of such shortage. Developer shall provide the Non-Constructing Owners with commercially reasonable documentation which evidences the additional costs and expenses incurred by the Developer and the pro rata share of said costs and expenses for each Non-Constructing Owner. Each Non-Constructing Owner shall have twenty-five (25)days to pay its share of such shortage to the Developer. (d) Non-Payment-Segment 1. Except as provided in subsection (e) below, in the event timely payment of the applicable Individual Construction Cost is not received from any Non-Constructing Owner, then (i) the amount of all such Individual Construction Cost together with interest thereon at nine percent per annum(9%) shall constitute a lien on said Non-Constructing Owner's property,unless and until paid; (ii)the Developer may record each such lien in the Public Records of Collier County,Florida against the Non-Constructing Owner's property and bring legal action against the Non-Constructing Owner for the Non-Constructing Owner's construction costs; and(iii)may, at the Developer's option, foreclose any such lien described above in the same manner as a mortgage lien on real property, and interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees of any such action will be added to the amount of any such lien, and shall be 11 OR: 3635 PG: 1683 recoverable in the event the constructing owner prevails in any such action. The right to foreclose specified hereunder may not be exercised prior to August 1, 2006; provided, however, such time limitation shall immediately cease to apply in the event of a sale, transfer or other disposition of the real property (or any portion thereof or any interest therein)that is subject to any such lien. (e) Temporary Construction Easement. Upon the request of the Developer, any owner when so requested by the Developer will grant to the Developer a temporary easement for access over,across,and upon such portion of its property as shall be reasonably requested by the Developer for the initial installation and construction of the North-South Road. Said temporary easement will be prepared so as to terminate upon completion of the initial construction of the North-South Road. The Developer shall restore any improvements damaged during its use of any such temporary construction easement. (f) Construction Liens. The Developer shall keep the other Parcels at all times free and clear of construction liens, mechanic's liens and any other liens for labor, services, supplies, equipment or materials purchased or procured, directly or indirectly, by or for the Developer (or any entity related or affiliated with the Developer). The Developer agrees that it will timely pay, satisfy or otherwise discharge all liens of contractors, subcontractors, mechanics, laborers, materialmen and others of like character on account of such a lien or the enforcement or foreclosure thereof. In the event of non- payment or non-satisfaction of any such lienjy..theJ) )eloper, the owner of the parcel shall have the right, but not the obligation, to pay off or a." 1:441611--:-.. . ovide the Developer with a bill covering all costs and expenses of the develo•a itil, . i _ suc b y such bill is not paid within twenty (20) days, then (a) the amount of s0`6 .• together with int- - I- -,.-on at lesser of eighteen percent per annum (18%) or the highest rate allow ' .y_,.law shall constitute a lien n the Developer's property, unless and until paid; (b) the parcel owner.m r rc a lierrni-the Public Records of Collier County, Florida against the Developer's property anc le, : ti.,. 1 - I1-veloper for said amount; and(c)may, at the parcel owner's option, Fore sill c`' lr- I ..-d . ..�}e, aid interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees of any such action ` 'll be V d.. t. : . F . t•If- cl}li , and shall be recoverable in the event the parcel owner prevailsiin�' 1' tic a` o.co """" 12. Notices. Any n.• request, demand, i �` 1)ct op,ther communication to be given to any party hereunder shall be - Joatri; g and either hand Nsed, delivered by overnight courier, facsimile transmission, or sent by s - or certified m I t zh receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: --'' �, If to Lindner/Trust 1, — Lindner/Trust 2: c/o Naples Realty Services 4980 Tamiami Trail North Naples,Florida 34110 Attention: Mark L.Lindner Telephone: (239)213-2686 Facsimile: (239)434-2747 If to Wolf Creek Estates. Hoover/Fallen Timbers, 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B-1 or Buckstone Estates: Naples,Florida 34105 Attention: William L.Hoover Telephone: (239)403-8899 Facsimile: (239)403-9009 Any notice demand, request or other communication shall be deemed to be given upon actual receipt in the case of hand delivery, facsimile transmission, or delivery by overnight courier, or three (3) 12 011: 3635 PG: 1684 business days after depositing the same in a letter box or by other means placed within the possession of the United States Postal Service,properly addressed to the party in accordance with the foregoing and with the proper amount of postage affixed thereto. In the event of any notice via facsimile transmission,a hard copy shall be sent via regular mail on the day of such transmission. Any such transmission received after 5:00 p.m.Eastern Standard Time(or Daylight Savings Time,whichever then applicable)shall be deemed to have been given on the next following business day. The addressees and addresses for the purpose of this Section may be changed by any party by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided herein. For the purpose of changing such addresses or addressees only, unless and until such written notice is received, the last addressee and respective address stated herein shall be deemed to continue in effect for all purposes. 13. Governing Law /Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with Florida law (exclusive of choice of law rules). Venue for any action arising hereunder shall lie exclusively in Collier County,Florida. 14. Prevailing Party. The prevailing party in any litigation involving this Agreement shall be entitled to recover from the non-prevailing party all attorneys' fees,paralegal fees and costs incurred in connection with such litigation, at arbitratio ,or-a+. =1 or otherwise, including reasonable attorneys' fees • and paralegal fees in the enforcement;of \ '' - .. k t der. The owners of the parcels herein described shall only be liable for • ' on of thi3' l -,nt during their respective periods of ownership, and in the event any/44001s brought for reco .-i-:$ •f\monetary damages for any breach hereof, the claimant shall look iioleli ts-the-interest of the th- .o ' of the parcel in breach for the recovery of such monetary damages/ - —"� 15. No Third P, r� : 1 L •13 i s\4 •s Agreement are for the exclusive benefit of the parties, their h F - + , • -•s , d as ' 's, excet as otherwise provided herein, and not for the benefit of an}An, ; s A�eikhe deemed to have conferred any rights, express or implied, upoVal third person. No iy tanding a&yithing herein to the contrary, it is recognized by all parties hereto\ t 'me Investors an.-E'-v o (r s,enc. is presently under contract to purchase Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 Contract"). For puts ' f this paragraph, the term "Prime" shall mean and refer only to Primed and Develo s';� ibr to a corporation that is the assignee of the interests of Prime Investors _ . "d under the Prime Contract; provided, e ..im j r�n however that (i) said assignee shall hav�,-t 4u- Ionty shareholders as Prime Investors and Developers, Inc. and (ii) Prime shall provide written notice to the owners of the Parcels within ten (10) days of any such an assignment and the verifying shareholder information. In the event of an assignment not complying with the foregoing terms,all of Prime's third-party beneficiary rights referenced hereunder shall immediately cease. Provided that the Prime Contract is in full force and effect and Prime is not in default under the Prime Contract, it is recognized by all parties hereto that Prime is a third party beneficiary of this Agreement and as such, has a vested interest in and to the terms hereof. Once this Agreement is executed,no changes,modifications and or alterations to this Agreement shall be permitted unless same shall be in writing and has the written consent of Prime; provided,however,consent of Prime shall not be required under the following conditions: (i) the Prime Contract is no longer in full force or effect or (ii) Prime is in default under the Prime Contract. In any event, the requirement for Prime's consent under this paragraph and Prime's third-party beneficiary rights hereunder shall cease and terminate as of October 31,2004. 16. Partial Invalidity. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall, to any extent, be declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, such term or 13 OR: 3635 PG: 1685 provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make it or its application valid and enforceable, and the validity and enforceability of all other provisions of this Agreement and all other applications of any such term or provision shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 17. Modifications. Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement may not be modified in any respect whatsoever or rescinded, in whole or in part, except by the consent of the owner(s) of the Parcels, and then only by written instrument duly executed, acknowledged by all of said owners, and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. No modification or termination of this Agreement shall affect the rights of any lienholder of any portion of any of the Parcels unless the lienholder consents in writing to the modification or termination. 18. Covenants Running with Land. All of the provisions of this Agreement,including all of the benefits and burdens described herein, shall run with the Parcels and shall be binding upon the Parcels and the successors in title to each of the Parcels. The rights and obligations in and to this Agreement are and shall be assignable to any and all successors in title to each of the Parcels, without the necessity of a formal assignment. However, should any party acquiring title to any of the Parcels request a formal assignment,the parties hereto agree to cooperate in the approval and execution of any such assignment. 19. Interpretation of Ow9.ei'`L iite s „,'• essly provided, the term "owner" when used in this Agreement shall be dee -ti,de and me.1 it 1 er and the owner's successors, assigns, or successor in title. / f,/ / ";- - 20. Integration. Ti'iis Afgreetnentembodies The,entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein,and the,”ler ler rS; : s `r ede all prior understandings. 1 21. Counter art 1. I,s gr= y .�xec a in) umber of . � � >n counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be ..p as 'stLan}rp oisiwititure appears thereon and all of which shall together constitute Q d the same instrument / r,, c 22. Recording. This ` 4 ‘'.1ent shall be recorde.', • Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 4TE CIR • {SIGNATURES BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE} 14 OR: 3635 PG: 1686 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. WOLF CREEK ESTATES: WOLF CREEK ESTATES,LLC, a Florida limited liability company •' Pi/ I By: Catalina Land Group,Inc. a Florida corporation, 4 - /. _ its Manager Print Name. ae L• (' • -: b.d . 4e�rt• 11$ By: Q19/211t Print Name: `" ..^ William L.Hoover,President COti STATE OF cl_62... Pv ss. COUNTY OF e ' The foregoing ins$ t ete. py:CaPo O ,by WilliamL.HoveasPresi• 4d�, orporaamans of WoCreek Estates, LLC, a Florida " 1$$�' a sill ..• • '11 • ,:*Si• entities who is personally known to me or( )has produc-• evidence of identification. (SEAL) '.. Oi I -& / . I_/. �`."•••:�� BRANDY k = P :4'IC # * MY COMMISSION 1 DD 158976 �I, C e: AS, EXPIRES:February 16,2007 Item tde Bonded Thu Budget Noisy Services (Type or Print) My Commission Expires: 15 OR: 3635 PG: 1687 HOOVER/FALLEN TIMBERS: 'iPi 1 f ___ 24.-8-- ---,-_________ — Print Na -: o M L. �+•�.�. William L.Hoover,as Trustee of Fallen ( / Timbers Land Trust dated November 5,2003 Yl Pant Name: akki.--- thiCk. STATE OF c1� ) COUNTY OF Ct c )ss. L The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me,this�, , of ( , 2004 by William L. Hoover, as Trustee of the Fallen .- —. d Trust dated November 5, 03, who is (v personally known to me or ( ) h s as evidence of identification. O r1, %J rpt�.FY PU , c- 4 (SEAL) *4)#$..t, MY Yk..`- c'r .r M,a A. / • r * COMMISSION 1 DD 7. �� "�! EXPIRE& lir •"T • • b I�� 'For Foe Bonded ThnJ: .. 7 �.� 1 .- .r ' • t) x E, : 1 • , xpires: 11-1E CIRC 16 OR: 3635 PG: 1688 L L . DNE t RUST 1: ,./ /ad ./ice �– / r. . .. . Print N:,. / _h7 '/i/l! D Mark L. inder,as Trus( under Unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D January 4,1999 ...... 4.77---Te.5n1W311, i.4,,iMr• STATE OF ) r )u• COUNTY OF .. cSS ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me,this 3 of AU e)V Jt- , 2004 by Mark L. Lindner, as Trustee under that unrecord-• land Tru D January 4, 1999 who is ( ) personally known to me or ( ) has produced —I a,AT,,Mill as evid ce of identification. / (SEAL) .da. :.0I -..° r �c ''TA,' .4414 .�: . Name: .A i- AI° ype o• 'Tint) i,ssion .,ices: Alt/ A k `ttttt9tt, uty • 2(0 ,rte . �� ,ii:„--,..-: TSE CII&C ',jlrt '"..!,,,,;.t... t'' » { r r • . 17 • Z l •d 8862 9E6 6E Aid3>0O/1S I a 1 1 NOad Wd9E: l VOOZ-EZ-8 OR: 3635 PG: 1689 • ./"'- NDN RUST 2: /J�!.ir.�i.. �/ 7Pnnt • 1= 4111 / /, 670 Mark L.Linder,as Trustee under •• �� Unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D May 21,1999 .. -7e bill .v.0.,CsL •• STATE OF ) / )ss. COUNTY OF G 5�5C� ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me,this p�3 of A11gC�Jr 2004 by Mark L. Lindner, as Trustee under that unrecord-r,Land Trust U/T/D May 21, 1999 who is ( ) personally known to me or ( ) has produced _Ai i _.-;disk as eviden - of' identification. • / (SEAL) i1t.' �i�i�.i/Js.../��I V 9.:.-A. ,/.4eau% ! . .- G?) L..) (Type or'runt) . :I M Commission Expires t ' - ,` & s t n C 0 11:. V ' if� • .Y 'C f V r `r r '' .. C5) a'.. i O \ \N �ilrl illr!:ii'•" E CIRC • Is • • • El 'd 84362 9E6 6EZ Al2J3NO3/1SI31)I WOdd Wd6E: t V00Z—SZ-8 OR: 3635 PG: 1690 BUCKSTONE ESTATES: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC, a Florida limited liability company il1fBy: Catalina Land Group,Inc. �, 0 a Florida corporation, �� ili` its Manager • Print Name: . , • c.<•� rak a . • a ii ' - By: £ ___________,.,rz Print Name: `tet �. _ William L.Hoover,President STATE OF cLI�Q C\ ) )ss. COUNTY OF D tA.\\ ) R C O Qv The foregoing instrument ••• • • owledged before me, s of 2004 by William L. Hoover as Presi•- t • . . .: Land Gr•up, Inc. a ' orida corpora , the manager of Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Fl• -da '' .-•- -.bili+ co y, on ,-ha of said company who is ( 4 personally known to me or •,:ii...,"d „`•ter as evidence of identification. 'yr t. .iro �a 1 (SEAL) ; 11 Ip*, ! .:• / • I, I 'r riii pr. II:, V ¢ My r• 'T ^. DD 158976 ' * * EXPIRES:' ;,2007 (Type or Print) �,, �' Bonded •: •'` ► ssion Expires: E. C1-- ' 19 OR: 3635 PG: 1691 EXHIBIT A PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Parcel 1: (Owned by:Mark L.Lindner,as Trustee under unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D January 4, 1999) The South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida,less the south 145.00 feet thereof for road right-of-way. Parcel 2: (Owned by:Mark L.Lindner,as Trustee under unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D May 21, 1999) The North 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. Parcel 4: (Owned by:Wolf Creek Estates,LLC) The North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South, ' .•:ar 1:1M i• t er County,Florida. Parcel 5: (Owned by:Wolf Cr. des,LLC) The South 1/2 . th7 o ,. est ' • : orthw. t 1 • of Section 34, Township 48 .u ,Ran le 2• oilier oun , lo 'da. Parcel 6: (Owned by:W if CEsta es,( ) ? The South 1/2 . - Southeast 1/4 of th � orth• esti 1 .f Section 34,Township 4' . •th,Range 26 East, - . �. orida. Parcel 7: (Owned by:Bucksto. 's LLC) 1� The South 1/2 of the No • "/4-of 3: outheast 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. Parcel 8: (Owned by: William L.Hoover, as Trustee of the Fallen Timbers Land Trust dated November 5, 2003(owns west half of described parcel)&Buckstone Estates,LLC(owns east half of described parcel)) The South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. Parcel 9: (Owned by:Buckstone Estates,LLC) The North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida Less and except that real property conveyed to Collier County in that certain Warranty Deed recorded in Official Records Book 3573,Page 0782 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. 20 OR: 3635 PG: 1692 Parcel 10: (Owned by:Mark L.Lindner,as Trustee under unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D January 4, 1999) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPT VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA;THENCE RUN NORTH 89°46'10" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,322.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE RUN NORTH 02°14'20" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, FOR A DISTANCE OF 145.13 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, A 175 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 02°14'20" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SO •.', 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34,FOR A DIS +' w c .' - T TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 1/2 *A I. lr'- "'L t` THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34;THE I y1 ' NORTH 89°47'3 q ` ' ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 2 07 I SOUTHWEST 1/4 0 : T . SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, SR • ill _ 'I" S 22.04 E TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF E 52 SF "-I SO 1 S 1/4 sF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 it OF SAID SE 01',�, i ►•a A •S . •13'2\6" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE )F t ~I All: t. I.( .O CHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, 1%..�� `jea • •4. 8 F. T• • :DINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-W• sr" y."- RB ROAD; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°46' I" a•ST, ALONG THE '►• 'TH RIt' - '+F-WAY LINE OF SAID VANDERBILT "4;,�M ROAD, FOR A L�, - Ali 'S..' 1,322.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEG ' 0.t•CONTAINING 15.: ' • ' ORE OR LESS. Less and except that10.0410:. �• _ ' -. K Collier County in that certain Warranty Deed recorded * a10IR:« ook 3573,Page 0780 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florio:. Parcel 11: (Owned by:Buckstone Estates,LLC) The West 330 feet of the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. 21 OR: 3635 PG: 1693 GENERAL LOCATION MAP OF PARCELS AND GENERAL LOCATION OF NORTH-SOUTH ROAD EXHIBIT "B" Genera/Location Map of Parcels #6 n RCO 0�-1 �F 1 #4 _ #1 1 #7 ArgwsLrw cam" moot Lane Island Wok PUO Rasidentiel 1/47 - 'Yr C Union Hilt #1 A A 2 #10 Vandarba Antal ROM `A-1 EXHIBIT"B" 22 OR: 3635 PG: 1694 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT COST ALLOCATION Parcel Owner's Share of Intersection Improvement Costs 1246 LIL #4 `11 #7 \ Carmagers Land tonswin• 1111 , s find t'j i % may Tom C,&tvsLad Wand Walk --- -- ` PUD Reddened i J C 12% Missinn Mr A #1 Shopping Canter #10 9.5% A2 9.5% yr d he Beeth Road A-1 EXHIBIT"C" 23 OR: 3635 PG: 1695 POINT"A-1"TO POINT"D" PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST BLACK BEAR RIDGE PHASE I Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost \xf,R COU cP ?_ ,, Prepared for: Lry HOO R ti- �;,I jj `fa, 117, ff Off, GLS TIE cit -/ . . Q.Grady Minor&Associates,P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs,FL 34134 (239)947-1144 (239)947-0375(Fax) May,2004 C5L 1-liQA- Norman . bP.P.E. I E ilcock Florida Registration Number 47116 r.LOMMUalrbeig„rd►.na.,y OPCcorr,.o.a.. EXHIBIT"D"-Page 1 of 3 24 OR: 3635 PG: 1696 Black Bear__RFdee-Phase I Budget Of-site improvements Item-North-South Outer Loop Road Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 AC 53,500.00 57,000.00 2 Silt Fence 2,800 LF $1.50 S4,200.00 3 Fill 8,500 CY S9.00 576,500.00 4 Final Grade I LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00 5 Valley Gutter 2,700 LF S530 514,850.00 6 r Limerock Base(compacted and primed) 4,800 SY S7.50 536,000.00 7 12'Stabilized Subgradc 5,750 SY S2.25 512,937.50 8 3'Asphalt 4,800 SY S8.50 $40,800.00 9 Signing&pavement markings I LS 56,500.00 56,500.00 • 10 Sodding 5,800 SY 51.50 58,700.00 1 I 5'Wide Concrete Sidewalk 1,500 SY SI6.50 $24,750.00 12 4'Limerock(under sidewalk) 1,500 SY S4.50 S6,750.00 13 Maintenance of Traffic I LS $2,500.00 52,500.00 Sub-total %Mnl$, ` 524798750 Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements entity Unit Price Total I Tuan Lanes Complex(WB Rt.EB La) J 000.00 580,000.00 2 Signallzation Y C__.Wi x.00 5130,000.00 3 Side Drain Drainage(4 DBI,DBL nun 36") ` �l /4 Lighting (1v {100:00 525,000.00 Sab4otals. " ,,,5270,000.00 Item-North-South Outer p ' d a Sanitary Sewe _ • quint' " \Unit Prig, T4tat 1 8'PVC Force Main(C.900 Clues At t �a•s"�- $28,000.00 2 8'Plug Valve w/Box ? �1,i 0.ir,,," $2,760.00 3 Hot Tap Future 16'Force Mali on ) "'a 1$5,500r00 I `.-�s''t .; P36.261118 Item-North-South Oute '; J '- r Water Main Qoatstky Unit 'tial —Tall Hot Tap Existing 30'Rdnf Con 1Q, {! ""�• I (or alt-1/b and tap new prop 24" 1 LS' 53 I t t i t'11,000 Go 2 12'PVC Water Main(CL 200) lot. 1.400 1X 1.'(0 X35,700.00 3 12"Oats Valve w/Box 2 PAt /S3,000.00 4 Fire Hydrant(Complete Assembly) (,)44., 2 EA v-:t' , $4,800.00 5 Permanent Bacterial Sample Point ,ii x.00 $1,000.00 6 Temporary Bacterial Sample Point ' Li 'r'.00 5900.00 7 Air Release Valve _ 51,550.00 $3,100.00 Sab-Total ;" ., ""` MR $83,500.00 Item-North-South Outer Loop Road- Drainaie Quantity Unit Price Total I Control Structure 1 EA $4,000.00 S4,000.00 2 15"RCP 100 LF $23.00 52,300.00 3 18"RCP 350 LF 525.00 $8,750.00 4 24"RCP 1,200 LF $34.00 540,800.00 S Valley Gutter Throat Inlet 6 EA $2,000.00 512,000.00 6 Grate Inlet 4 EA 51,700.00 56,800.00 7 Junction Box 8 EA $1,850.00 $14,800.00 8 IS'Flared End Section 1 EA 5900.00 $900.00 a Sab-Total q�e" Mia 590.330.00 Of-SiteTotala ,;:;.:>,.','.;5'.s'' ,; ',":3 $728,097.50 5/14/2004 EXHIBIT"D"-Page 2 of 3 25 0R: 3635 PG: 1697 Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Assumptions Construction stake out excluded. Permit fees excluded. Impact fees excluded. Engineering fees excluded. Testing services excluded. Street lighting excluded(except VBR intersection). Conservation Area No mitigation,or replanting costs included(clearing only). Sewer • Sewer profile has been adjusted to include <` ��+ CO service for the potential lots on the ComcY Ail, Drainage Water _ 1 Will provide water service stubs for 24' C.... Earthwork and Clearing ! , f" Fill from lakes is limited to only 1 ` vation depth below existing_.y p ., D. • . commendation. An average of 1.6 ft of fill over the eveloped site. t Rock excavation,rock crushing and attritteis incidental to the lake exae . () Paving • Sidewalk cost included in initial infrastructure. i L_ CI S Offsite Inner loop road to be built by others,including turn lanes to serve site(no costs assumed). Vanderbilt Beach Rd 6 lane improvements in place(I.e.force main). Vanderbilt Beach Rd temporary turn lanes not required(I.e.payment to county to build improvements to support project and to built as part of 6 lane improvements). 2 - �'� �,�4,0-c.ca..n; a .- ----Jr t om, /6 `yo EXHIBIT"D"-Page 3 of 3 26 OR: 3635 PG: 1698 Q. GRADY MINOR,P.E. 1415 Panther Lane, Suite 232 Naples,Florida 34109 Phone 239-591-6795 Fax 239-591-6732 July 23,2004 RE: Estimate of Engineering, Surveying&Permitting Costs for Pristine Drive Segment One Engineering Design and Permitting of Pristine Drive $35,000 Engineering Design and Permitting of Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Int. Improvements $10,000 Pristine Drive Permitting Costs $1,500 Estimated Costs for Engineering Design and Permitting $46,500 Construction Engineering for Pristine Drive $9,372 Construction Engineering for Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Int./ROW Improvements $4,565 Total Estimated Costs for Constructio igirftelOD $13,937 Construction Surveying for Pris a, ve . - $18,656 Construction Surveying for Vde . Beac i Rd. Int./RO p •vements $6,017 Total Estimated Costs for Cos I cti -' eying $24,673 c . *I110 Y C 7."4 '0 \i .p Li 41EC1. C 308A51engrcosts EXHIBIT"E" 27 *** OR: 3635 PG: 1699 *** INITIAL DENSITY ALLOCATION-WOLF CREEK PUD Wolf Creek PUDs Initial Residential Unit Allocation #8 #5 81 81CCO #11 #7 61 WV 41 — -- cad Nageas Land jam\ (Tom CraifsLand Nand Wok PUD Reiidwwtl --- C 81 1yecs„ Wart,Mk 1 Shopping Caner 64 A-2 Vanderbilt Sawch Road A-1 Total of 147.69 acres and 591 Units EXHIBIT"F" 28 LykinsDave From: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 4:25 PM To: Richard Yovanovich; R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; Fiala Donna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: CSA - Density - Runs with the Land.pdf Dear Commissioners: Black Bear Ridge concurs with Mr.Yovanovich's assertion that the presently pending 215 unit Pristine Reserve site plan exceeds the allowable 80 units density on the Mederos parcel. Black Bear Ridge also concurs with Mr. Yovanovich's concern about Mr. Anderson's representation to the board about Pristine Preserve needing a preserve reduction to accommodate larger lot sizes, when in fact the pending site plan indicates that it is really needed to accommodate a density increase. Black Bear Ridge also concurs with Mr.Yovanovich that any board approval of a reduction in preserve area should be with a stipulation that development of the Mederos parcel is limited to 80 units, since the owner elected to go the "insubstantial change" route rather than the "substantial change" route. As to who owns the remaining 103 density units per the Cost Sharing Agreement, Black Bear Ridge disagrees with Mr. Yovanovich. Notwithstanding all of the documentation that Mr. Yovanovich just provided you, the fact is that the Cost Sharing Agreement allocates density, and it is clear that the density"shall run with the Parcels." See the attached two pages from the Cost Sharing Agreement highlighting these provisions. Since all of the Black Bear Ridge lots are now privately owned, and Stock turned over control of the HOA(and thus the common area) in 2013, Black Bear Ridge residents and their HOA now own 100%of the Black Bear Ridge "Parcel" and Stock owns 0%. Since the Cost Sharing Agreement provides that the density"shall run with the Parcels," Black Bear Ridge owns the density, not Stock. While Mr. Yovanovich states that"at no time was the excess density assigned to [Black Bear Ridge]," the Cost Sharing Agreement clearly provides that the benefits run with the land and "without the necessity of a formal assignment." Black Bear Ridge appreciates that Stock is doing the right thing as the developer by re-committing to complete its already-existing obligation to pay for the off-site intersection improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Pristine Drive. This has been a documented developer obligation since as far back as 2005. Sincerely, Steve Bracci %, Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com 1 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: Richard Yovanovich [mailto:ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.corn] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 3:48 PM To: R. Bruce Anderson<rbanderson@napleslaw.com>; burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; Fiala Donna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Commissioners, The petition before the BCC pertains to the modification of the preserve area. As I previously stated, it is my understanding that the Mederos parcel is limited to a density of 80 units. Mr. Bracci provided you with some of the legislative history supporting my understanding with regards to the PUD limiting density. Mr. Anderson stated to the BCC that the change in preserve area is related to increasing the lot size. However, the current plat submitted by his client clearly shows the purpose is to increase density beyond the PUD permitted density of 80 units for the Mederos parcel. Increasing density cannot occur through the Insubstantial Change process. Therefore, as long as the approval of the reduction in preserve size is conditioned upon development of the Mederos parcel being limited to 80 units, my client does not object to the petition filed by Mr. Anderson's client. I appreciate that the prior property owner had other site plans with a higher density. However, there is no evidence that the prior site plans were approved by the County. Accordingly, the prior site plans are irrelevant and not consistent with the PUD. As to the ownership of the 103 units,that is a private matter. We do not agree with Mr. Bracci's position on ownership of the units. Because Mr. Bracci spent most of his allotted time addressing ownership of the excess units, we are providing copies of some documents addressing the density rights in the PUD. The Purchase and Sale Agreement clearly identifies that Stock Development purchased the excess density. Also attached is an assignment document assigning developer rights to Black Bear Ridge Naples, LLC. Finally, the Cost Sharing Agreement addresses the excess density. At no time was the excess density assigned to Mr. Bracci's client. Mr. Bracci also spent a lot of time addressing the payment for the intersection improvements at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. My client has already agreed to pay the 30% share of Black Bear Ridge set forth in the Cost Sharing Agreement for the right and left turn lanes at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road.The 30%share was based upon an allotted density of 203 units. Only 100 units were built. Black Bear Ridge, LLC remains the owner of the unbuilt 103 units. The unbuilt units have not been assigned to the residents of Black Bear Ridge or to the Homeowner's Association. Please contact me if you have any further questions. 2 Richard D. Yovanovich Esq. COLEMAN Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. LM 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 0 YOVANOVICH 300 Naples, Florida 34103 (239) 435-3535 KOESTER (239) 435-1218 (f) This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above email address.Thank you. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor(a@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc: Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com>; Richard Yovanovich <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however, the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong.Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. 3 Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFYPASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTORKFY5 AT LAW 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson(c�napleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci to' r y`,1 ma . • • .. Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 4 011: 3635 PG: 1677 construction of Segment 2 shall be deemed to be the payment of said owner(s)fair share of the cost of the North-South Road with respect to Parcel 3. 7. Wolf Creek PUD. (a) Allocation. The Wolf Creek PUD encompasses Parcel 1,Parcel 2,Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive, and Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. The Wolf Creek PUD permits 591 residential dwelling units. Unless otherwise provided herein, density shall not be transferred from one parcel to another within the Wolf Creek PUD without prior written permission of the owner of the property losing density. The Wolf Creek PUD allocated the 591 residential units as follows and as shown on Exhibit"F"attached hereto and made a part hereof: Parcel 1-64 units;Parcel 7-41 units; and all other parcels in the PUD- 81 units each. Upon the execution of this Agreement, 41 dwelling units each shall be automatically transferred from each of Parcels 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6, at no cost, to Parcel 1, with a total resulting transfer of 123 units to Parcel 1. Accordingly,the number of residential units allocated to Parcel 1 under the Wolf Creek PUD shall be 187. (b) Option to Purchase Additional Density. The owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ("Purchaser")shall have the option to purchase(in addition to the density allocated to Parcel 1 and Parcel pursuant to subsection (a) hereof) from the owner of Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive, ("Seller") up to 92 dwelling units which have been allocated"+ `i . 15. rection (a) hereof to Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. Said option may be exer '�. . r• r Acr,knore than two transactions on or before December 31, 2005 ("Expiration p': -' e purchase pn = ch individual dwelling unit shall be $500.00. In the event Purchaser elec 4 o exercise this option, chaSser shall,on or before the Expiration •Date, notify Seller of the number . ,o btpurehas .. Clo •ng.\if any such purchase of dwelling units shall occur within 20 dayfr ofheller''s re..-•: • notic=from ch ser. The purchase price shall be paid in cash, wired funds,ora casfiier s c " an'office in Collier County,Florida or such other method as may be ac(c tabl t 1 `° - 's sole iscretion. Seller shall have the sole discretion to determine oi3t 43• • e,1v lling ar 'a signed. Purchaser shall pay all costs associated with the • er\of dwelling units. s o tion' I terminate on midnight of the Expiration Date and be of no a'i orce and effect. }� � '4- (c) Contingency. Ini , t any statute, law . :I 5%,..) ce,resolution,rule, or regulation is adopted and enforced by the state, . + :thPr . . entity (or any agency or department thereof) that would have the effect of •n`• Al 'u rn: i e number of dwelling units that can be constructed within the Wolf Creek PUD(in its en ref)/ ,the parties agree that Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be collectively allocated 33%of any such temporary allocation and Parcels 4 through 9 shall be allocated 67% of any such temporary allocation; provided, however, that such temporary allocation shall not have the effect of reallocating density among the parcels. For the purposes of this paragraph only, the term "temporary"shall mean for a period of no more than twelve(12)months. 8. Native Ve¢etation. Unless otherwise agreed by the owners of the various Parcels, all Parcels within the Wolf Creek PUD shall be designed to stand alone. All Parcels with indigenous native vegetation, as determined by Collier County, will be required to preserve or replant 25% of such native vegetation, as described in Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, or in the event of a repeal of said section, such other section of the Collier County Land Development Code controlling the same subject matter. Each of the Parcels shall provide for its own native vegetation requirements as shown within the Collier County approved environmental impact study that was submitted in conjunction with the Wolf Creek PUD rezoning petition,unless otherwise agreed to by any one or more Parcels owners. Parcels providing in excess of 25% native vegetation can transfer such credit to another Parcel under different ownership only upon written agreement of the property owner transferring the excess credit. 6 OR: 3635 PG: 1685 provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make it or its application valid and enforceable, and the validity and enforceability of all other provisions of this Agreement and all other applications of any such term or provision shall not be affected thereby,and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 17. Modifications. Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement may not be modified in any respect whatsoever or rescinded, in whole or in part, except by the consent of the owner(s) of the Parcels, and then only by written instrument duly executed, acknowledged by all of said owners,and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. No modification or termination of this Agreement shall affect the rights of any lienholder of any portion of any of the Parcels unless the lienholder consents in writing to the modification or termination. 18. Covenants Running with Land. All of the provisions of this Agreement,including all of the benefits and burdens described herein, shall run with the Parcels and shall be binding upon the Parcels and the successors in title to each of the Parcels. The rights and obligations in and to this Agreement are and shall be assignable to any and all successors in title to each of the Parcels, without the necessity of a formal assignment. However, should any party acquiring title to any of the Parcels request a formal assignment,the parties hereto agree to cooperate in the approval and execution of any such assignment. 19. Interpretation of Owner' 0ii`=Zvtpressl y provided, the term "owner" when mo used in this Agreement shall be deen}e( i e1tiae and me.1 i - er and the owner's successors,assigns, or successor in title. y, , r, r t, y 20. Integration. 's A%gre�embodies a entire '+d ding of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein,an the% - - -:., r , ; .,:. ;.s.1,,,, ede all prior understandings. 21. Counter . 's •gr,-•• . • ,, exec -, inJ ,iy)number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be �pt-i_.-. as . s .. • .. --.,;:o/ ture appears thereon and all of which shall together constitute ,, d the same ins' . 22. Recording. This !a :i ent shall be recor Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 0t. \ �, 71iE E` '�-( `'' • {SIGNATURES BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE} 14 I Ex parte Items - Commissioner Burt Saunders COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda )c 16.A.4. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Arthrex Boulevard, Application Number PL20170001077. V NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM Consent Agenda 16.A.5. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes Phase 1A, Application Number PL20170001378. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM I Ex parte Items - Commissioner Burt Saunders COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A.4. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Arthrex Boulevard, Application Number PL20170001077. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM Consent Agenda X 16.A.5. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes Phase 1A, Application Number PL20170001378. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM Ex parte Items - Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 I f Board of Zoning Appeals 8.A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.Judith S. Palay and 92 other property owners within the Cocohatchee Bay Neighborhood Communities,filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the administrative approval of building separations, building widths, building dwelling units, and building heights in the Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA-PL20160002242 for Kalea Bay aka Kinsale Condominium Phases II-VI.The subject property is located at the northwest and northeast corners of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South and Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170002165] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings 7Correspondence ®e-mails �alls Met with: Diane Rupnow, Brad Schiffer, Donna Reed-Caron, Diane Ebert, and Karen Bishop Information from staff Multiple emails 5 1)- FilsonSue From: Kmggal <kmggal@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 12:08 PM To: SolisAndy; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: kmggal@aol.com Subject: Kales Bay issues I have been on vacation with my family but thought it important to get to the commissioner meeting today and have my say. I was scheduled on Spirit Airline flight 943 from Atlantic City NJ (ACY) to Fort Myers (RSW) on July 10th, 2017. I was at the airport and it was delayed again and again. We finally got on the plane around 8:00 p.m. We were then asked to deplane because the flight was cancelled. (There were no available flights today to get me there in time.) The main criteria I used when buying my home in Naples was that I wanted to be West of Rt. 41 and have a southwest view of the beautiful Naples sunsets. It looks to me I will lose my view of the beautiful Naples sunsets if the Kalea Bay buildings are approved with major changes proposed disregarding the PUD Agreement entered into in 2008, and without any knowledge of or any input from the surrounding communities or I believe the Collier County Commissioners. I feel this developer makes agreements with communities without ever thinking they will have to keep their part of the bargain. The PUD Agreement entered into in 2008 gave this developer well over$30 million worth of extra units of condos in exchange for leaving the property adjacent to me as a golf course or preserve in perpetuity. Then in 2014 they tried to have this PUD agreement opened up to build houses on this property. They already got several extra floors and added condo units that they would be selling each for millions of dollars and were trying to renege on their end of the deal. Now they want to build a wall of concrete blocking my view by building these high rise buildings 50 feet wider and many feet closer together which is the equivalent of the size of adding a another high rise building. The PUD Agreement entered into in 2008 did not account for any of these changes and the surrounding communities were never informed. I also believe the commissioners were not made aware of any of these changes. I am asking each of you to please take into consideration what we have given up to this developer and what he has promised and seems not to keep his end of the bargain. Kathleen Gallagher 849 Carrick Bend Cir. #201 Naples, Fl 34110 1 FilsonSue Subject: Diane Rupnow-402-580-1545 and Brad Schiffer and Donna Reed-Caron re Cocohatchee Bay/Lodge Abbot Settlement Agreement Location: BCC Office Start: Mon 3/20/2017 11:30 AM End: Mon 3/20/2017 12:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: McDanielBill PDF ` 'tel Lodge_Abbott_S...Cocohatchee Bay Summary and Ti... Dear Sue, I would like to meet with Commissioner McDaniel as soon as possible to talk to him about the Cocohatchee Bay PUD which includes a Golf Course and the Kalea Bay Condo Towers. Since Commissioner McDaniel might not be familiar with this development, I will attach a brief history to this message. I will also attach a copy of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement which clearly states terms that we would like the current County Commissioners to enforce. Thank you! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 i FilsonSue Subject: Diane Ebert 593-1103 regarding Kalea Bay and Wilshire Lakes Location: BCC Office Start: Mon 7/3/2017 1:30 PM End: Mon 7/3/2017 2:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: McDanielBill 1 FilsonSue Subject: Karen Bishop 825-732 regarding Kalea Bay Location: BCC Officer Start: Mon 7/3/2017 2:00 PM End: Mon 7/3/2017 2:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: McDanielBill 1 eSir e CONCRETE & MASONRY, INC. July 11, 2017 Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 Re: Kalea Bay Tower Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: This letter comes to you from a concerned contractor that has operated in Naples for over thirty years. It was with great excitement that we prepared for the Kalea Bay project post a recession during which many construction contractors, including Allen Concrete,had to lay off thousands of employees. When we were awarded the concrete portion of the Kalea Bay project, we hired an able workforce to undertake it. We anticipated that the project duration would be approximately seven years. The project consists of five towers, clubhouse facilities, guest cottages, maintenance building,tennis courts and golf course. We are under notice that there is opposition to the completion of the remaining towers. When construction of tower#2 was delayed, we had to lay off several employees and reduce the hours of several others. We have tried to hold-on, but if this project does not move forward or is delayed any more, we will be forced to lay-off more employees and/or cut more hours. These employees are the same ones that fuel our local economy with their spending. Projects such as Kalea Bay attract both seasonal and permanent residents who also contract miscellaneous local trades i.e. air conditioning contractors,painters, Allen Page 1 of 2 6301 SHIRLEY STREET • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 • OFFICE (239) 566-1661 •FAX (239) 566-8515 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:59 AM To: 'Andy Cathey' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Phase 2 Mr. Cathey, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 10, 2017 email and the attached letter expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. ate William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Wle-1 Fags WEB PAGE: r From:Andy Cathey[mailto:acathey@rosenmaterials.com] Sent: Monday,July 10,2017 7:58 AM To: McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>;SaundersBurt < ,f ,1€ y ®o$Iiergov.net>; FialaDonna<DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>;SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Phase 2 To the Collier County Commissioners, I have been a resident of Collier County since 1987 and part of the Construction industry since 1989. It has come to my attention that there is some opposition to the 2' phase of Kalea Bay. My company, Rosen Materials, supplies building materials and supplied Kalea Bay Phase 1. During that time we added additional employees that have supported Collier County in many other areas. I am concerned with any decision to stop this project as it will continue to provide our employees (currently at 32) continued employment. The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and growing economy. Thank you for your time! Andy Cathey Regional Manager-West Florida 1 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:39 AM To: 'Aluminum Glass Solutions' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Mr. & Mrs. Lopez, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 10, 2017 email and the attached letter expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. Veil William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Wet P WEB PAGE: — From:Aluminum Glass Solutions [mailto:aluminumglasssolutions@centurylink.net] Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 1:36 PM To: McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay To the Collier County Commissioners, We are a small family owned and locally operated glass &glazing company. We are currently subcontracted by C.R. Smith for the glazing specs at Kalea Bay. We have just learned that there is some opposition to the 2nd phase of Kalea Bay,and naturally we are concerned. An opportunity to participate in such a significant project, not only for our small company, but for so many trades in our community,that have the opportunity to participate,would benefit the whole community as this is a project that would last for many years—creating job opportunities and benefiting our industry. Considering the very hard years the construction industry and Collier County suffered not too long ago, a project of this magnitude is such a positive outlook for companies and their employees. It has truly been a positive experience to be part of this project for our company,as well as others we are sure. On the other hand the tremendous financial hardship for all involved with this project, if halted -would be appalling. Companies such as our own, have prepared themselves- invested in additional insurances, materials and even equipment to fulfill their contract obligations and most importantly provided additional opportunities of employment . Our company, as well as all the others involved and their employees,we are certain, will be immensely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. Thank you for your time and careful considerations. Many Thanks, Juan and Nydia Lopez Aluminum Glass Solutions, Inc. 239-354-1001 office 239-354-1009 fax info@AluminumGlassSolutions.com www.AluminumGlassSolutions.com 2 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:37 AM To: 'Nancy Farnsworth' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Project Ms. Farnsworth, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 10, 2017 email and the attached letter expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Wei WEB PAGE: — From: Nancy Farnsworth [mailto:nancy@acresplumbing.com] Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 3:38 PM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Project Dear Commissioners: Please find attached signatures from 22 of our staff who work construction in Collier County and many who live in the county. Several have worked directly on the Kalea Bay project and are scheduled to work on the upcoming building 2. If the Kalea Bay Project is halted or delayed due to the protesters against this already approved building,we will have to lay people off. Please stand strong against those few part time residents who are against this project. .)valncdi, Nancy P.Farnsworth Vice President Acres&Son Plumbing, Inc. Serca Management, LLC 239-597-5031 239-597-3740 fax 1 PAVES 1' 4' KATHERINE R.ENGLISH Partner Direct dial:(239)336-6249 11JLL \?\,T J1IIf Email•K;�h rzDirect dial:nnur 336- 2 1833 Hendry Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 I P.O. Box 1507,Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1507 1 (239)334-2195 I Fax(239) 332-2243 j)EEttEllF July 7,2017 1111 JUL 07 2017 Board of County Commissioners Mr. Matthew McLean By Collier County,Florida Engineering Services- 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Growth Management Division Naples,FL 34112 Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Collier County Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112-5749 Naples,FL 34112-5746 Re: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Administrative Appeal by Judith S. Palay,et al. Kalea Bay Phases 2-6 PL20160002242 Ladies and Gentlemen: Our firm represents Lodge/Abbott Associates,LLC and Lodge/Abbott Investments Associates,LLC. (collectively,"Lodge/Abbott"),the owners of Cocohatchee Bay PUD.We are co-counsel with Margaret Cooper, Esquire,of Jones Foster Johnston&Stubbs who handled the earlier litigation resulting in the 2008 Settlement Agreement regarding this project. I will be appearing at the appeal hearing on July 11, 2017 on behalf of Lodge/Abbott.Also appearing for Lodge/Abbott will be Karen Bishop of PMS Inc.of Naples,Inc.Ms.Bishop is the project entitlement facilitator. This appeal arises from a challenge to Lodge/Abbott's request for an amendment to a previously issued site development plan(SDP Amendment)for the project authorizing Buildings 2,3 and 5, The original 2008 SDP for which an amendment is sought was approved by staff in the regular course of business. The Appellants make much of the fact that the County and the land owner entered into the Settlement Agreement resolving a dispute over the appropriate approach to a bald eagle management plan for the project. The Settlement Agreement and its provisions are not relevant to the appeal challenging the present amendment to the SDP. The SDP Amendment subject to this appeal is limited in scope and includes only issues normally addressed by staff in the regular course of business. 4632 VINCENNES BOULEVARD,SUITE 101 4524 GUN CLUB ROAD,SUITE 203 CAPE CORAL,FLORIDA 33904 WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33415 (239)542-3148 (561)471-1366 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 2 The purpose of this letter is as follows: To request intervenor and party status for the project owner,Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC.,identified as the owner for the application to the amendment of AR-5284,Phases 2-6. To provide you with historical context of the Cocohatchee PUD and 2008 Settlement Agreement relative to the present SDP Amendment that is the subject of this appeal. To request determination of the standing of the Appellants to take an appeal in the first place. To address the scope of the appeal and identify the limited issues which can be heard in this appeal. To address the authority vested in staff and the standard of review of the Board on an appeal. To address the substantive arguments raised by Appellants. Intervenor/Party Status Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC. is the project owner and holder of the amended site development plan approval(SDP)for Buildings 2,3 and 5,from which this appeal arises.The appeal is a challenge to the decision of County staff approving the requested amendment; however, the appeal directly affects Lodge/Abbott's authorized plans for the phases of the project specifically approved by this SDP Amendment. Lodge/Abbott is an interested and affected party with vested development rights and it should be given party intervenor status and, be allowed to present evidence and argument and cross examine other parties' witnesses. We request confirmation of the same. Historical Overview' of the PUD and the 2008 Settlement PUD History. Collier County Ordinance No. 2000-88 was passed December 12,2000.It approved a planned unit development known as the "Cocohatchee Bay PUD" (the "Subject Property" or "Project"). Attached to the Ordinance was the original PUD document. Attached to the PUD document was a Bald Eagle Management Plan to address bald eagles nesting in an extremely degraded pine tree on a portion of the property that was near the planned residential development. The development committed to provide all required state and federal permits as a requirement of development. The PUD Ordinance authorized 590 residential units in five residential towers and multi-family homes located on a parcel west of the golf course.The ratified PUD constituted a substantial"down zoning"from the prior zoning substantially reducing the number of units and significantly reducing the traffic impacts associates therewith. In addition to the immediately realized reduction of density,there was substantial increase of 1 This historical overview comes from Lodge/Abbott's Petition for Certiorari and Appendix.The Petition and Appendix is submitted separately as part of the record in this Appeal.The Petition contains more details as to the facts.This letter is a brief overview. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E.Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 3 neighborhood open space/conservation areas that would not be otherwise attainable. It was the increase in preservation/open space which garnished the approval of criteria noted in the PUD specifically utilizing the more desirable clustered design type development.By encouraging site design that located most of the units in the five towers,rather than single family or low density multi-family homes,the end result was more open space,,golf course,and preservation areas which now constitute approximately 90% of the 532 acres in the property. The project's preservation commitment is extraordinary. The project's preserve areas total 431.37 acres, including uplands, wetlands and submerged lands. The preservation provided by the project west of Vanderbilt Drive completes the connection for a wetland/waterway preservation area that stretches from Bonita Beach Road to Bluebill Avenue and connects to the State owned lands along the coast. Initial Reliance of Lodge/Abbott. The original applicant for the PUD Ordinance was a contract purchaser,Vanderbilt Partners II,Ltd. Lodge/Abbott later bought Vanderbilt Partners'contract in reliance on passage of the PUD at a purchase price in excess of$32 million was set in reliance upon the passage of the PUD. Lodge/Abbott has also invested substantial time and money toward active development. Also,Collier County required Lodge/Abbott to provide monies ($3,000,000.) for improvements to the bridge, dedicate easements,and provide rights of way on Vanderbilt Drive. Right-of-way was also provided for Wiggins Pass Road as a condition of the PUD. PUD Requirement for a Bald Eagle Management Plan. At the time of PUD approval,a pair of bald eagles had nested in a dead slash pine tree located on the westerly portion of the Subject Property. The LDC and GMP required a Bald Eagle Management Plan which had to comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the USFWS and FFWCC. Collier County GMP and LDC on Species Protection—Deference to State and Federal Permitting. Collier County's GMP(addressing protected species)called for deference to state and federal agency guidelines and their decisions. County staff had no expertise in such matters.The County policies referred to the standards contained in the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and the USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. For bald eagles,the Habitat Management Guidelines called for protective zones around the nest and restricted development activities during the nesting season. In Collier County once there has been a specific ruling by the USFWS and FFWCC,subparagraph(3)of GMP Policy 7.1.2.became the operative standard and deference to the specific ruling.is mandated. Similarly,the County Land Development Code§3.04.02(2005),mandated the owner use the guidelines found hi the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle. The Code repeated the GMP deference to the specific rulings of the state and federal agencies on individual properties,on a case-by-case basis. There was never a proposal to harm the eagles or even to cut down the nest tree. SDP Application. After getting state and federal approvals,Lodge/Abbott submitted site development plans("SDP")for the clubhouse and residential dwelling units to Collier County. The SDP application called for modifications to the site plan and moving of units from the golf course to the tower buildings. Also, the PUD document had a setback requirement between principal structures,calling for half of the sum of the height Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr.County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 4 of the structures. It also provided for staff approval(administratively)for reduced set back between clustered principal structures with a common architectural theme. See Section 3.5 of the original PUD. The new SDP proposed to reduce setbacks between principal structures.The PUD document spells out that the original Master Plan was conceptual only and amendments could be made according to the LDC. The LDC provides for staff approval for such changes. County Response to SDP Submittal. In response to the SDP submittals, Collier County issued a comment letter asserting that the Bald Eagle Management Plan required review by both the EAC and the Planning Commission, as well as final approval by the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC"). Lodge/Abbott was told to file a rezoning petition to amend the PUD Ordinance in order to amend the Bald Eagle Management Plan. The County never took the position that SDP amendments for the project required BCC approval. PUD Amendment Application. Under protest, Lodge Abbott submitted an application for a PUD amendment to modify the Bald Eagle Management Plan. BCC Limited Review to Eagle Plan Only. On September 21, 2004, the BCC voted that the PUD amendment was a limited review—limited solely to the Bald Eagle Management Plan("BEMP"). No other aspect of the PUD was considered. Therefore, density, setbacks, height, etc., were not reconsidered. The County recognized that any changes to these items were administrative in nature and for staff review only. Public Hearing-Vote on BEMP. The BCC voted to deny the application by vote of 4 to 1. The vote of the BCC was limited only to the consideration of the Bald Eagle Management Plan.The denial was based solely on the BCC's conclusion that the County could impose tougher standards than the FFWCC and USFWS and could protect a single pair of eagles rather than the approach mandated by FFWCC and USFWS. The County never took the position during this process that site development plan modifications required public hearings and BCC approval. The Litigation.In response to the decision denying the Bald Eagle Management Plan,Lodge/Abbott filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Circuit Court challenging the BCC's decision and a Bert Harris damage claim for the diminution in value of its property should the court determine that the County had the legal authority to prohibit all development to protect a single pair of eagles. The 2008 Settlement.In 2008,the County and Lodge/Abbott entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement") to resolve the litigation. Aside from the additional monies paid by Lodge/Abbott for County roadway improvements, there are several relevant aspects to the Settlement Agreement to bear in mind: 1 1 1 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo F. Ochs,Jr.County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 5 The Settlement Agreement approved the PUD amendments to change the location of the units into one R zone and to amend the Master Development Plan. Original PUD Rl zone 480 units 44.0 acres R2 zone 90 units 9.7 acres Golf Course 20 units 170.39 acres 590 units total • Amended PUD * R Zone 588 units 53.7 acres Golf Course 2 units 170.39 acres 590 units total *See Amended PUD Paragraph 2.3 and Table I The Settlement Agreement did not address or include approval of the SDP changes calling for the requested reduced setbacks.The Settlement Agreement was,however,contingent upon staff's timely approval of the three SDPs.The County recognized and understood that the review and approval of those three SDPs, including subsequent modifications to those SDPs were considered normal exercises of administrative staff level functions. In other words,approvals of SDPs were not,nor have they ever been matters for the BCC.See paragraph 3 of the SettlementAgreement.a Contrary to Appellants'assertion,the Settlement Agreement did not require or otherwise provide for BCC review of future SDP amendments. It only required BCC approval of changes to the Settlement Agreement itself,which relates to the bald eagle management plan,not site development plans.See paragraph 21 of the Settlement Agreement.3 The Settlement Agreement approved the Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan and removed the requirement that any future amendment to the BEMP required County RAC review.See paragraph 6.9.F. How the County has implemented Settlement Agreement. Since 2008 both the County and Lodge/Abbott have implemented the Settlement Agreement exactly as it reads and as they understood it—that SDP review and approval is a staff administrative matter. This is exactly how every other project in Collier 2 3. The settlement shall be contingent upon three site development plans("SDPs")that Lodge has submitted being approved by the County as well as the development standards set forth in the original PUD and may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR 5283,and AR5284. 3 21. This Agreement and Release may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release.This Agreement and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 6 County is treated under the LDC, whether in PUD zoning or other normal zoning districts. SDP plans are internal to the proj ect and are an administrative matter since the impact externally has been mitigated thru the development criteria established in the approved PUD Ordinance and Collier Land Development Code. Staff review assures that the details comply with the objective PUD standards and the LDC standards. Technical and ordinary discretionary planning matters have been delegated to staff. This is no different than SDP approval by staff for any other zoning districts(whether it be RSF,SMF,Commercial,PUD or otherwise). A public hearing is not required and there was no intent to deviate from that process for the Cocohatchee PUD through the acceptance of the Settlement Agreement. In fact,the following SDP amendments to Cocohatchee Bay have occurred administratively since 2008; Original SDP Phase 1 =AR-5283, June 2008. Subsequent staff approvals: Short Title Description SDP# Approval Date 1 Phase 1A Gatehouse, 1A 20140001382 Oct-14 2 Phase 1B Balance of Ph 1 20150000420 Aug-15 3 Water 13 Water and Sewer public 20150002903 Jan-16 Fire at cottages,trellis,dumpster, 4 SDPI 1 Generator 20160000723 Apr-16 Tennis,pickleball,fire lines club, club entrance,water east club,roof 5 SDPI 2 leaders tower, golf parking,maint 20160002600 Dec-16 parking, island x W/S Record Water and Sewer Record Dwgs 20160002553 6 SDPI Phasing Maint Phasing plan for maint bldg. 20170000649 Feb-17 7 SDPI Misc Revisions Misc "catch-up"revisions 20170001964 Jun-17 Finally,delegation of approval rights to staff for minor changes to the overall development(including the reduction of setbacks for clustered developments with a common architectural theme)is commonplace in Collier County and is not unique to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD.It is called for in the LDC at Section 4.02.04 A. The stated purpose in this code section is to allow internal clustering in an innovative design to accommodate greater open space elsewhere in a planned development.How clustering is achieved is a design feature which is properly reviewed by professional planning staff. The BCC has approved the clustering concept as a policy matter as set forth in the LDC and the details of how to implement that policy are delegated to planning staff Contrary to Appellants' suggestion that the buildings are being crammed onto a small land mass, the total vistas and open space provided by this project are vast(90%of the project)and greatly exceed the code requirements. The impact of the additional reduction in building separation in the SDP Amendment on the existing open space is nonexistent. Further,there is no discernible impact on any perceived external vistas from Vanderbilt Drive at 35 miles an hour or from the north or south of the project. If the buildings were further Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 7 separated,there would be a need to further impact areas previously set aside as preserves to accommodate the development. Standing and Status of Appellants The location of the proposed buildings is significant.They are located as far west into the interior of the property as possible, abutting the westerly wetlands and preserves, to provide the greatest distance from the Vanderbilt Drive right-of-way.The property is bounded on the west by Wiggins State Park and Barefoot Beach County Park and the wetland preserve buffers for those parks. To the east of the project's 159+1- acre golf course parcel is Tarpon Cove PUD. Wiggins Bay PUD,is located south of the golf course parcel and Wiggins Pass Road.To the north of the golf course parcel is Glen Eden,Falling Waters,Bentley Village and Audubon. To the south of the high-rise parcel on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive are the existing mid- to high-rise projects of Aqua, Pelican Isle Yacht Club, Marina Bay,Anchorage,and the Dunes PUD. To the north of the western parcel is Arbor Trace PUD and Egrets Walk. Most of the Appellants live north of the Cocohatchee PUD.Due to their specific locations within their own development projects,the existing substantial landscaping buffers for those projects provide visual screening so that they are not impacted visually by this project. The building separation modification is internal to the Kalea Bay project and addresses the buildings' physical proximity to each other, not to other developments. Moreover the north to south alignment of the buildings means that changes in the building separation as proposed has no visual impact of the vistas from the property to the north. Internal setbacks anticipated by a clustering site design are truly an internal matter -- not a development aspect that burdens any adjoining property owner or neighbor. Pursuant to Section 250-58,an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party may appeal a site development plan. An affected property owner is an owner of property located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is effective. An aggrieved or affected party is a person or group of persons who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth Management Plan,Land Development Code,or Building Code(s).While the alleged adverse interest for an aggrieved or affected party may be shared in common with other members of the community at large,it must exceed the general interest in the community good common to all persons(emphasis added). The Appellants have failed to provide justification for their standing to raise this appeal, either as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party. Prior to hearing the basis of the appeal, as filed, Appellants must establish their standing to bring the appeal either due to proximity to the projector an interest which exceeds the general interests in the community good of all persons. To the extent that one,some or all of the Appellants cannot establish their status as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party,their individual claims should be dismissed for lack of standing. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo B. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 8 Scope of Appeal—What Can Be Heard and What Evidence Can be Relied Upon The Appellants raise nine issues—some of which have nothing to do with the current SDP approval.See for example Issue 7(Restrictive Covenants),Issue 8(Invasive Control),and Issue 9(10 Foot Pathway).These should be stricken from the appeal of the SDP approval as irrelevant and untimely. Secondly,Appellants do not delineate between early SDP amendments for which the time to challenge has expired and the current SDP Amendment subject to this appeal. Appellants' challenge to any decision covered under a prior SDP Amendment that was not earlier challenged is untimely and cannot be considered. Third,Appellants have submitted a"record"of exhibits to which objection is made.Most documents referred to are rank hearsay-letters,newspaper articles,etc.The Appellants' "record" should be stricken and any exhibits submitted at hearing should be ruled upon individually as to admissibility. Most importantly,Appellants rely heavily upon a recommendation by the Planning Commission in 2008 on the Settlement Agreement to remove staffs discretion to administratively reduce setbacks in accordance with that permissible for a clustered development.The BCC rejected this suggestion in 2008.This recommendation was not included in the Settlement Agreement nor can be inserted into the Settlement Agreement by the current BCC under the guise of an appeal of the SDP amendment. Standard of Review The BCC's standard of review for an appeal of an SDP is not addressed in the LDC.Such review should be limited to determining whether staff deviated from the requirements of the LDC and PUD language relevant f to the reduction building setbacks in issuing the amended SDP approval. In both the Settlement Agreement and the LDC, the planning staff is afforded discretion to approve reduced separation between buildings to facilitate clustered developments.The building separation reductions are clearly part of the design elements internal to a planned project which meets the specific clustering goals and criteria of the LDC.These types of design features are not policy decision matters for the BCC,but rather technical,internal design issues more properly heard by the County's professional planning staff.The discretion to address these kinds of design questions has been delegated to staff by LDC and by the PUD documents.Staff acted within the parameters set forth in both documents in deciding to issue the requested amendment to the SDP. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr.County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 9 Substantive Arguments Issue 1. Public Hearing Appellants assert that the Settlement Agreement requires a public hearing and BCC approval before amendment to SDP plans.It does not.In fact,the Settlement Agreement did not call for the BCC to approve the 2008 SDP plans—but only made the Settlement Agreement contingent upon staffs review and approval of the 2008 SDP plans.The Settlement Agreement only modified the PUD Document vis a vis the Eagle Management Plan.Paragraph 21 deals with amending the Settlement Agreement only—not amending future SDPs.The PUD document specifically requires SDP amendments to be reviewed and issued by staff and clearly allows modification to building setbacks to facilitate clustering by staff's administrative action. Issue 2.Building Separation Appellants rely heavily on the Collier County Planning Commission("CCPC")suggestion in 2008 to eliminate the staff's discretion to consider reduced building setbacks to facilitate clustering.This suggestion by the CCPC was not accepted by BCC and is not part of the Settlement Agreement the BCC approved. Contrary to Appellants claims that the buildings are too close,the Collier County LDC specifically sets forth definitions for"cluster"and"cluster development"that provide for closely grouping buildings in order to provide environmental benefits. Indeed, the definitions for those words include the rationale for allowing closely grouping buildings in order to increase open space and reduce impacts to native vegetation and habitat areas while reducing the costs of providing services. 4 Next Appellants argue that staff abused its discretion in approving the reduction of building separation by large percentages and that reductions should be limited to small percentages of the overall building separation requirements. The Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards for the"R" District set forth in Table II of the amended PUD states that the distance between principal structures is 0.5 times the sum of the building heights,subject to Note 3 which states: Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and the walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The plan language of the PUD clearly states that the building separation can be administratively reduced. Further,since the BCC in reviewing and adopting the amended PUD as part of the Settlement 4 LDC Section1.08.02 Cluster:Concentrating or grouping buildings more closely than in conventional arrangements,locating such buildings on a limited portion of a development site,in order to allow for open space or preservation of natural features. Cluster development:A design technique allowed within residential zoning districts or where residential development is an allowable use.This form of development employs a more compact arrangement of dwelling units by allowing for,or requiring as the case may be,reductions in the standard or typical lot size and yard requirements of the applicable zoning district,in order to: increase common open space;reduce the overall development area;reduce alterations and impacts to natural resources on the site;to preserve additional native vegetation and habitat areas;and,to reduce the cost of providing services,including but not limited to central sewer and water. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney • Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 10 Agreement chose not prohibit administrative reductions of building separation nor did it set a limit on administrative discretion to do so. The modification of the building separation by staff is clearly authorized where the walls are not parallel to each other and the language of the amended PUD clearly explains the circumstances which would give rise to that determination(angled,skewed,or offset). Further,clearly the BCC knows how to limit staff discretion for clustering since it adopted limits to building as part of Table 5 of LDC Section 4.02.04. LDC Section 4.02.04 sets forth the design standards for cluster residential design in Subsection(C)Table 5 which clearly limits the reduction of distance between principle structures to no less than 10 feet. However,Subsection F goes on to state that additional reductions may be approved by the Collier County Planning Commission. Clearly,the BCC does limit staff discretion to reducing the building separation to no less than 10 feet. There is no indication in the documents associated with this Project that this limitation applies to the SDP Amendment. In this instance,Lodge/Abbott is entitled to seek administrative approval to reduced building separations pursuant to its amended PUD. Even if the limitation on the reduction of building separation set forth in LDC Section 4.02.04 does apply to the pending SDP Amendment,the building separation reduction authorized in no way approaches the limits set forth in Table 5. Issue 3.Building Widths This is the same argument as Issue 2, but stated in terms of building width rather than building separation.This argument fails for the same reasons set forth above. Issue 4. Guest Suites This issue is not timely raised. Guest suites were approved as part of the original PUD and authorized for construction in earlier SDPs.Guest suites as defined in the LDC and the PUD are not"units"for purposes of calculating density by rule.Guest suites cannot be sold to third parties,but are instead part of the common area amenities for use by all unit owners specifically to accommodate their guest overflow.Further,these units do not include a kitchen which is required for a dwelling units. This issue cannot be addressed again on appeal of approval of an amended SDP for Buildings 2,3 and 5. 5 Collier LDC Section 1.08.02 Definitions: Dwelling(also called dwelling unit):Any building,or part thereof,constituting a separate,independent housekeeping establishment for no more than 1 family,and physically separated from any other rooms or housekeeping establishments which may be in the same structure.A dwelling unit contains sleeping facilities,sanitary facilities,and a kitchen. Guest quarters/guest suites:An attached or detached room or suite,which could be used as a temporary sleeping accommodation, which is integrated as part of the principal use of the property and may contain running water as long as it is not configured or of a size that may accommodate a kitchen. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 11 Issue S. Building Height This is a non-issue. The locating amenities on the roof area of each tower were previously addressed. There is no amenity located on the roof that affects calculation of the building height. The current amenities located on the roof tops are limited to a recreational area that is not enclosed in an air-conditioned space. By code,these amenities are not sufficient to constitute an additional floor for height calculations. Issue 6. Garage Dwelling Unit The proposed building manager's living area in the"SDP Amendment is not within the garage,but in a separate building that is part of the common area for the Project. It is an accessory use,not a unit offered separately for sale,to assure housing for on-site management. Staff's approval of the building manager's living area in the separate building as an accessory use has no effect on the calculation of building height for Buildings 2,3 and 5. The approval is authorized by the PUD provision regarding accessory uses. See Section 3.4.B.3.6 Furthermore,the manager's unit does not count toward density under the applicable LDC regulations and the PUD as an accessory use. Issue 7. Restrictive Covenant This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal.Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to restrictive covenants. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 8. Invasive Control. This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal.Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to invasive control. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 9. Ten Foot Pathway This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal.Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to the ten foot pathway. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. 6 3.4.B.3 Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature to the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Department Director determines to be compatible in the"R"Districts. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 12 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons the appeal filed herein should be denied. Sincerely, PAVESE LAW FIRM .//J By Katherine R. Er}glish MLC/KRE:ebg / cc: Ralf Brookes, Esquire Margaret L. Cooper, Esquire Michael Bosi Karen Bishop FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 10:13 AM To: 'Bret Groos' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Project Mr. Groos, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 7, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 WEB PAGE: — From: Bret Groos [mailto:Bret.Groos@communityelectricfl.comj Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 10:02 AM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Project Good morning, I am reaching out to you all today to express my support for the Kalea Bay project, much like the hundreds of people that have purchased units in the first two buildings we are all very proud of this community. We have been operating in collier county for 45 years and are a strong supporter of this place we call home. We understand that from time to time there is opposition to growth, it's funny how most of it is from people who have moved here and know think no one else should. I am sure you all deal with this very often.That being said,the stalling of this project is starting to have a financial impact on many of the local subcontractors,vendors and suppliers that are involved in the project,all of these businesses supply thousands of jobs in Collier County and have made commitments to the project team to reserve man power and re-sources for the project, so from the owners to the workers there is concern of the starting date of phase 2. Thank you for your attention, hopefully this can be rectified soon. 1 COMMUN ITY.E LECTRIC OFiCOLIR, INC. r ..L imag%d1OSMLng S.RCO 1972 Bret Russell Groos President Office: 239-262-3438 Fax: 239-262-6943 Mobile: 239-253-0807 Bret.Groos@communityelectricfi.com 2 (01(// From: OchsLeo \fri(A./A V To: BrockMarvJo L Cc: CasalanauidaNick;frenchJames;StrainMark Subject: FW:Very disappointed. . . Date: Wednesday,April 19,2017 3:05:41 PM Please hold for my review prior to the scheduled meeting. thanks. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. nc Collier County Manager { Jeoochs@colliergov.net r 1-_C 239.252.8383 From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 2:49 PM To: Diane Rupnow Cc: OchsLeo Subject: RE: Very disappointed. . . I am scheduled to meet meeting with you and the County Manager later this month, and we would be happy to discuss any and all issues with you. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239) 252-2614 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdianePgmail.corn] Sent: Wednesday,April 19, 2017 11:34 AM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkowcolliergov.net> Subject:Very disappointed. . . Dear Mr. Klatzkow, Being denied our right to speak for 3 minutes during Public Comment on a topic not on the agenda at the April 11, 2017 BCC meeting was disappointing. The fact that you chose to NOT give our attorney's letter dated February 7th and addressed to "Collier County"to the Commissioners was disappointing. The fact that the County manager advised Commissioner McDaniel to cancel the appointment to meet with us was disappointing. To be told that the County Manager would have "Nick" set up a meeting for me to meet with the right county staff and then "Nick" never contacting me was disappointing. The fact that Mark Strain, chair of the Planning Commission met with us and said he would research our concerns and find answers to our questions and then 2 days later informing us that he could have no further involvement in this matter because it might become a conflict of interest for him down the road was disappointing. required distances, Rich Yovanovich's argument that these dimensions were clearly shown to neighbors during the PUD review process does not ring true. It is disappointing to learn that building separations of 153'; 126'; 127'; and 341' were approved in the SDPs in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement. Had that been clearly been explained to County Commissioners, I doubt that the Agreement would have been signed. This makes it especially disappointing that County"staff' allowed the buildings to become 50' wider because that reduces the proposed building separations even more to: 109'; 165'; 100'; and 100'. There will be only 72' between parking structures—Unacceptable! Everyone who drives down Vanderbilt Drive will be disappointed to see 5 massive towers WIDER and CLOSER TOGETHER than they should be. Then they will wonder WHO allowed this to happen! It is disappointing and a violation of the Settlement Agreement that County"staff'has allowed the developer to add 12 guest suites as ACCESSORY units when the PUD lists guest suites as PERMITTED uses—NOT ACCESSORY units! It is a violation of the Settlement Agreement that County"staff' have allowed changes to the complete layout of the originally approved SDPs. It is a violation of the Settlement Agreement that County "staff' have allowed a house on the upper level of the garage which is a non-habitable level. It is disappointing that on the plans submitted to the SFWMD it appears that the developer is attempting to add two four plexus to the plans. It is disappointing that the plans the developer submitted to the SFWMD do not match the plans which the County sent to me when I asked for the most current Golf Course plans. It seems to me that plans submitted to the County and SFWMD should match exactly in reference to land usage. We have a Settlement Agreement and it trumps everything. County staff had no authority to make significant changes to the entire layout of the originally approved SDP for Phase 1 without a public hearing. The question is, "What are you and the County Manger going to do about this?" It is possible to achieve his 588 density on the west side of Vanderbilt(still can put 2 on the east side)without making those buildings so close together. It also would have been possible for him to achieve his density without making the buildings 50' wider, but the units would not have been as large and so he would not have been able to make as much money. Paragraph 15 of the Settlement Agreement states that"Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees of any and all claims, causes of action,costs, expenses, attorney's fees or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord.No. 200-88 . . . . So so that mean that the developer can't sue the County if his amendment is denied? Why should we,the whistleblowers in this debate, have to spend over$2,000 to file an Administrative Appeal to get the Commissioners to review something they should be reviewing since they are bound to uphold the terms of the Settlement Agreement? Why should we spend $925 in notification fees to notify ourselves? Why should we have to file an Administrative Appeal and put ourselves in"judicial jeopardy" (according to Mark Strain)when our purpose is to provide County Commissioners with information they should have received from their own staff? Paragraph 25 states, "In this respect,the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release. When I look up that Case No. it shows that it is still pending. You've had almost 9 years to take care of that detail and it is disappointing that it has not been done. According to the Bert Harris Statute 70, both you and the developer should have done that so that the 20th Judicial Count could protect the public interest. Do you want the public interest to not be protected? The terms of the Settlement Agreement have not been upheld and it is up to the Collier County Commissioners to uphold them. How can they do that if they are not informed by their staff? This situation smells of deception and collusion. . . The Commissioners were circumvented in 2008 when they were not provided with clear information about the controversy involving the interpretation of the footnote and they are still being circumvented and deprived of information regarding the Cocohatchee Bay PUD and violations to the Settlement Agreement. We have waited patiently for days to hear from you or the County Manager regarding our issues. We have no choice but to go to the press. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this MINIM The fact that he continued to take actions regarding this matter by having breakfast with Commissioner McDaniel the Friday BEFORE we were scheduled to meet with that Commissioner the following Monday was both revealing and disappointing. . . Seems he told Commissioner McDaniels that there had been a precedent set for County staff's interpretation of that footnote accompanying the building standards chart in the PUD and so the Kalea Bay project was a done deal. That was beyond disappointing and makes me wonder why both the County Manager and the chair of the Planning Commission would try so hard to put up road blocks preventing me from meeting with Commissioner McDaniel . . On March 30, 2017, we asked for public records which would document the precedent disclosed to Commissioner McDaniel as well as any other instances in Collier County in which the footnote accompanying the building standards chart has been interpreted to mean that building separation could be infinitely administratively reduced by County"staff" as long as buildings had common architectural theme and were skewed. You commented that you were not aware of any litigation about this, but someone on County "staff' is fully aware that is not the case. The fact that the developer was able to get County "staff'to amend the approved SDP for Building 1 in order to move that Building 1/3 closer to Aqua was both disappointing AND a violation of the Settlement Agreement. We wanted to point that violation out to Commissioners on Tuesday, but you wouldn't allow it. The decision to move that building 60' closer to Aqua was significant and, according to paragraph 21 of the Settlement Agreement, should have been made only by the BCC. The fact that the developer was able to get County "staff'to amend the approved SDP for Building 1 to allow the width of that building to be increased by 50' is disappointing AND a violation of the terms of the 2008 Settlement Agreement,paragraph 21. That decision was significant and it should have been done "with the same formalities" and only done by the BCC. It is disappointing that the other 4 buildings will be 50' wider than on the approved SDP— another violation of the Settlement Agreement. It is unreasonable and disappointing that County "staff'has autonomous authority and, apparently,unlimited discretion to interpret a footnote accompanying the standards chart to mean that the developer does not have to abide by the formula for determining minimum building separation as long as the buildings have common architectural theme and are skewed. You,yourself, referred to that interpretation as"absurd"at the January 11, 2008 CCPC meeting. . . It is disappointing that the above slight of hand allowed deficient Kalea Bay Building separations to slip undetected through the PUD approval process. When an architect testifies during a Planning Commission meeting that he had to get out a scale to determine that the building separations in the drawings did not meet the minimum °/hare �# i y My name is Diane Rupnow �nd I live in the Glen Eden Community. ' ........ •. . . In 2000 the Cocohatchee Bay PUD was approved. That PUD contained a development standards chart and footnote that our attorney attached to his February 7th letter to YOU and I gave to commissioners again last Tuesday. Carl Stenddahl just read the footnote a few minutes ago. What was NOT in the PUD was an explanation of how that footnote could and would be interpreted by County staff. It appears that the County is misinterpreting the footnote to allow this developer to get away with drastically reducing separation between buildings. At the February 25, 2008 meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, Commissioner Caron said, "It absolutely defies credulity on the part of both staff and the petitioner that that asterisk in the development standards table means that 251 -foot buildings can essentially be built with zero lot lines." My sentiments exactly! Question: Are ALL developers privy to this slight of hand to get their buildings closer together or is this interpretation of this footnote reserved for those with special privilege? IF this footnote has been used in Collier County at least once before so a precedent IS in place, then I think the question becomes, were good planning standards used then to arrive at that decision? This footnote caused big controversy at the January 11 , 2008 Planning Commission meeting where several commissioners argued that this was not GOOD PLANNING. Our County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow referred to its interpretation as absurd and said, "The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time." Regarding the inclusion of the chart and footnote on the PUD approved in 2000, I have this to say. . . If the Planning Commissioner with a degree in Planning and Architecture has to get out a scale to determine that the building separations in the drawings did not meet the minimum required distances, then Rich Yovanovich's argument that these dimensions were clearly shown to neighbors during the PUD review process does not ring true. I contend that building separations of 153' 126'; 127'; and 341 ' were sneakily included and approved in the SDPs in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement On the County Commissioners' website, it lists your "Guiding Principles" or values. The first two are similar—"Honesty and Integrity". Since those traits are important to you I submit the only depiction of the completed Kalea Bay project to be found on their website. It shows potential condo buyers and neighbors of Kalea Bay 5 tall skinny towers about as far apart as they are tall. This depiction is a lie. In reality those towers will be TALLER, WIIDER, and MUCH CLOSER TOGETHER. We incorporated the accurate dimensions of the proposed Kalea Bay project and came up with this more realistic depiction showing towers 310' wide and 200' tall with currently proposed distances of 109'; 165'; 100' and 100' between the 5 buildings. So, this is a more truthful depiction of what the completed Kalea Bay project would look like. You can see the impact this massive wall of towers has on the skyline, shading the road and surrounding neighborhoods, blocking access to light and views. While researching this issue, I have been given an answer that was not truthful and had roadblocks set up by County staff. If there is nothing to hide, then truth and transparency should be granted to citizens like me seeking answers to valid questions. These decisions by administrative planning staff without BCC approval VIOLATED the public trust, violated the Settlement Agreement and should be investigated and discussed in a public forum. The final "Guiding Principle" or Value listed on your website is "SELF CORRECTING". I take that to mean that you want to make the best decisions possible for your constituents, the citizens of Collier County, so IF it is perceived that a mistake has been made, you are willing to investigate and reevaluate a decision and make "right a wrong." We hope you do. Thank you! Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Additional Facts For Commissioners Mark Strain, chair of the Planning Commission met with us and said he would research our concerns and find answers to our questions. Then 2 days later he informed us that he could have no further involvement in this matter because it might become a conflict of interest for him down the road and yet he continued to take actions regarding this matter by having breakfast with Commissioner McDaniel the Friday BEFORE we were scheduled to meet with that Commissioner. Seems he told Commissioner McDaniel that there had been a precedent set for County staff's interpretation of that footnote accompanying the building standards chart in the PUD and so the Kalea Bay project was a done deal. On March 30, 2017, we asked for public records that would document the precedent disclosed to Commissioner McDaniel as well as any other instances in Collier County in which the footnote accompanying the building standards chart had been interpreted to mean that building separation could be infinitely administratively reduced by County "staff" if skewed buildings had common architectural theme. We have received no public records yet. Does County "staff" have autonomous authority and unlimited discretion to interpret a footnote accompanying the standards chart to mean that this developer does not have to abide by the formula for determining minimum building separation as long as the buildings have common architectural theme and are skewed? Just so you know, plans the developer submitted to the SFWMD do not match the plans which the County sent us when awe sked for the most current Golf Course plans. Shouldn't plans submitted to the County and SFWMD match exactly in reference to land usage? Paragraph 15 of the Settlement Agreement states that "Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorney's fees or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord. No. 200-88 . . . . Does Paragraph 15 mean that the developer can't sue the County? Why should we have to spend over $2,000 to file an Administrative Appeal to get the Commissioners to review something they should be reviewing since they are bound to uphold the terms of the Settlement Agreement? Why should we spend $925 in notification fees to notify ourselves? Why should we have to file an Administrative Appeal and put ourselves in judicial jeopardy when our purpose is to provide County Commissioners with information they should have received from their own staff? If the County can't be sued by this developer, perhaps the County should make decisions that reign in this developer's greed, protect our Naples "sense of place" and uphold the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Paragraph 25 states, "In this respect, the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release. That Case No. shows that it is still pending. 9 years later. According to the Bert Harris Statute 70, both the County and the developer should have done that so that the 20th Judicial Count could protect the public interest. We'd like to see the public interest protected. The terms of the Settlement Agreement have not been upheld and it is up to the Collier County Commissioners to uphold them. How can you do that if you are not informed by County staff? The Commissioners were circumvented in 2008 when they were not provided with clear information about the controversy involving the interpretation of the footnote. They are still being circumvented and deprived of information regarding the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. This is not the first time that these developers have changed plans in their favor. We, the citizens, will suffer the consequences and experience the ruination of our beautiful view—forever. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 m l ° 2 a I \i) n. o \r")_.) t' t �' 10 . . .,... 8, '.: : ......... ''''-''' , i ctio c._.), I) . , .GtN a co �a o .n 0 v # ; N 1 Ei if-'-- ...--.1;••• U ->) I a C M f (\(-) , • v o m v o O' a O N a N ca -----_, c .,_::7:?.!';,!,g„,4,1;:,:, 11 ;-.'..---, :4:. C----) '• • t - c; ,., q cF. .1:: : Ai., T :r. al _ salt 0 L C LI ;' a) - U n (C "d u FN C d a -- - � ca m C^), - � U 9 W N m L CD _� 3 _ +++ Q 3 m E c� E U a n 0 q U A ,—� CN U CO _CU I T- b yyrrIf--�S X 4 ev L o r.r. l f " 9 rs4: Q.) -..A. 'e.,L.-: . . r 1 ii z d 2 J C—__.) . V m n v . \I) n w a P n M co U coV L O U R . . ., , ,, 1ii .. 03 s �� M ii ., .. 7.-.3. (L 3 /> m O O L ' a:11 N T m i ('') . IS 1 ' . m o N 0 ti Vi c) Vl . -, Q. 7 m fa I I m Z) --- N 7 M O N N U C m m U C � N .. 3� N yl b N Z. LI 3 r hx d m. a , .f s to ►-awe t^ pt'. . ,, -` \a) ''" ,* -' ". 4 wF- ,k, / , v, . ,.. , .,. „ 3 y: o C. a ----t , $,,,,z -,,, ; .., -----(7 i # w t ,*.,.'',.,.,....„ 1 „..' r- D 4,,, „ , . , . .,,, ,„ 7. I, , 1. - al .' i i ' ---- QJd i F wa cV ,,4 t , ' . ., �—r t ' , 4 tt. ci, i #,a G. 4. ®_____________).k) . , -i � ., fiN. r: O w :ar .-i Z ,` U ter^ 0 yam �a p� (^\ V ! b' ..Z-1111111 . s lit '1' . ' '''', ''''': ' '' 1 417(k ,,.7 . :.. , ,,,, Y � YT � �* ' ,. 'e, '*+ wit Q` E' T k FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2017 1:35 PM To: 'Renee Gaddis' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay PUD Ms. Gaddis, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 6, 2017 email and the attached letter expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. Vete William L. McDaniel, Jr. Commissioner,District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 - Web Page WEB PAGE: – From: Renee Gaddis [mailto:renee@reneegaddis.com] Sent:Thursday,July 6, 2017 1:15 PM To: McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; BurtSaunders@colliergov.n; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay PUD Renee Gaddis t.239.431-3352 i m. 239.348.5794 a. 9915 Tam ami Trail Ni, Suite 1 1 Naples. FL 34108 reen�nee@reneegaddis.com www.reneegaddis.com L1x EICEI 1 BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net McDaniel, Taylor, Saunder, Fiala, Solis Dear Collier County Commissioners: As a long-time Naples business owner, I am concerned that the opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay, should it be successful, may adversely affect the Southwest Florida economy and the Collier County tax base. Projects such as this generate significant tax revenue for our county and at the same time require little in government services. That's a win-win for government. It will also provide hundreds of jobs to an industry that is coming off years of stagnation. Commissioners, I urge you to support the Kalea Bay development project and allow our free market to work as it is intended and over the objections of the not- in-my-backyard opposition. Sincerely, Renee Gaddis Renee Gaddis Interiors 9915 Tamiami Trail N #1 Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 431-8352 FilsonSue To: djreedcaron@icloud.com Subject: Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and PUD Ms. Reed-Caron, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 2, 2017 letter expressing your concerns regarding the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners on July 11, 2017. I would suggest that you plan to be present to make your comments and concerns part of the public record. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. Fea William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Web Page WEB PAGE: 1 RECEIVED JUL 0 3 2017 OFFICES OF COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS To: C' ' 5/0-)-/C/P__. 7LL �/( e A4/1)/ --,5 From: Donna Reed Caron IECONEINE 1 District District 2 3 Date: July 2, 2017 JUL h D"31 r"ct Li!) district 4 Re: Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Pi�pp District 5 In a thinly veiled attempt to justify actions antithetical to good planning, staff issued a memorandum dated April 28, 2017 trying to explain the application of development standards for the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. The staff approval letter spends a great deal of time trying to clarify their actions and quoting the "clear language" of Florida Statutes. Critical to the discussion currently being brought forward by citizens is that staff is not following the Settlement Agreement and all of it's component parts in the reviewing process. The following is attempt to detail submitted changes in both clear language and unambiguous facts. Building One is 50 feet wider than shown on the original SDPs. The apparent intent is to make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of another whole building to the plan and further exacerbating the building separation issue. Clear and unambiguous. The developer has added twelve guest suites as accessory units. However, the PUD lists guest suites and cabanas as permitted uses and they are to be counted as part of the total number of residential units: 590. Four 20 story buildings each with 120 units equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Plus twelve guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So as of this date, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of units allowed. Clear and unambiguous. Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top structures such as the pool, community meeting room, and fitness center. According to the PUD, building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the upper most finished ceiling elevation of the roof structure. Also County Land Development Code staff and Zoning & Land Development staff issued an official clarification on the issue of roof-top accessory structures: SC 2004-05, "... the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased height, and refers to unenclosed, unroofed, and un-air conditioned space for recreational use." Clear and unambiguous. A housing unit (a habitable structure) has been added to the garage level, conflicting further with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. Clear and unambiguous. The plans that exist at the County are inconsistent with those submitted to South Florida Water Management - - - preventing any factual analysis to be conducted. For example the SFWMD plans show the addition of two four-plex units, further exceeding the allowed unit count. Nothing clear or unambiguous about this. Building separations are less than code minimums of 1/2 the sum of the building heights, and less than the already reduced and adjusted separations (as per PUD footnote #3) shown on the SDPs attached to the PUD and Settlement Agreement. To quote from the CCPC review that was accepted and approved by Board action, "However, as a result of language in the PUD, the CCPC recommends reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. As an alternative to the reduction in separation, greater distances could be provided by moving alternating towers closer to Vanderbilt Drive." Those separations are as follows: building 1 to 2, 153 feet; building 2 to 3, 126 feet; building 3 to 4, 127 feet; building 4 to 5, 341 feet. The Settlement Agreement, PUD, Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission, and three SDPs reviewed and approved by staff were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 22, 2008. This action was taken in total as part of the Summary Agenda. Again, The Board approved all documents as presented without objection from the County Attorney, County Manager, county staff, the petitioner, the petitioners agent or citizens. Clear and unambiguous. Staff cites several examples of supposed historical application of the administrative reduction of building separations. However, only one of the examples represents a high rise tower project and it is a side yard set back not a building separation situation. In this instance, staffs action was understandable since the Waterpark Place building is not next to another high rise but rather a four lane tree lined parking area leading to a tram to Pelican Bay beach. There are no past projects analogous to the Cocohatchee/Kalea Bay project. Clear and unambiguous. Besides the clear and unambiguous language of Florida statutes being an important tenet, ignoring any portion of an ordinance or law or reducing the language to an absurdity is equally important. Staffs interpretation that there is no limit to reducing building separations because of clauses such as `footnote #3', is not a credible interpretation. Additionally, staff cannot ignore the fact that the CCPC recommendation was included with the PUD, Settlement Agreement and Bald Eagle Management Plan on the Summary Agenda and was approved by The Board on April 22, 2008. The citizens of Collier County harbor serious concerns that must be addressed in a timely fashion. Upholding the Settlement in it's entirety is not only reasonable and proper, but critical to the community's continued trust in the rule of law, our ordinances, the sanctity of contracts and settlements, and of course to the integrity of and respect for our system of county governance and the people elected and appointed to assure equal treatment for all. Thank you. Donna Reed Caron 790 Wiggins Bay Drive -� Naples, FL. 34110 G ul'I nit l 239-514-2780 239-280-6857 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 11:59 AM To: 'Daniel Fusco' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay opposition Mr. Fusco, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 6, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. Eu?C William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Web WEB PAGE: � = Original Message From: Daniel Fusco [mailto:twcfusco@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,July 6, 2017 11:50 AM To: McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay opposition Hello, Just a quick note in regards to the petition against phase 2 of Kalea Bay. I am the owner/operator of Woodworkers Cabinet of Naples, Inc and we work closely with CR Smith and his team to manufacture custom cabinetry and millwork for his clients. We have grown our company to over 30 employees and we primarily service CR Smith and the Kalea Bay project. We have recently purchased a second location down the street from our current shop on Taylor Rd. to enable us to keep up with the needs of the Kalea project and we are extremely excited for the remaining phases of this development. Please consider the impact on the families who are counting on this project for years to come and will need this to help pay for their kids college. (I have 5 of them!) Thank you and we appreciate our beautiful town and all the opportunities it offers to the trades people! Sincerely, Daniel Fusco 1 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 1:39 PM To: 'Brian Dollard' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Project Mr. Dollard, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 3, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 w . WEB PAGE: From: Brian Dollard [mailto:briandollardree@gmail.com] Sent: Monday,July 3, 2017 1:13 PM To: McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Project To the Collier County Commissioners, It has been brought to my attention there is opposition to the development of the Kalea Bay Project by a few surrounding neighbors. Let me start by saying I am a 41 year Resident of Naples, I have been in the construction business for 38 years. I have seen all the changes from Ft. Myers to Marco Island.The construction industry here is 2nd to none for quality of job and the tradesman that build them. We are a vital part of our communities. From purchasing our own properties and creating commerce with other businesses and industries. Also by creating a better tax base for our State and local Government. I currently employ roughly 50 tradesman for our company. Local men and women who have families to provide and support.The Kalea bay Project is vital to my family and my employees families to live a quality life here in Southwest Florida. In this situation with the opposition opinion, it's a shame that a few who have their dwelling in the this location are opposed to those who would like a dwelling in the same location. (this makes no sense).The Kalea Bay project is the most beautiful thought out resort style community that I have been involved with and the privilege to work on. The construction Industry has been in some tough times as of late,just the past year or so we have been coming out of a serious slow down due to the financial crisis. All the people involved are starting to live a better life and contribute to the community in a more vigor way. If this project was delayed or stopped because of the few who only have their own interest in mind and not the greater good of the community it would be another hardship on the construction industry and the people involved. My company and its employees would certainly feel hardship in their lives. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Best regards to all of you. Brian Brian Dollard briandollardree@gmail.com RCE Contractors, Inc 3884 Progress Ave Naples, FL 34104 239-643-5758-Office 239-825-1532- Cell 239-643-6772-Fax CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is only for the person(s) named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail. 2 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 1:52 PM To: 'Aris Dougherty' Subject: RE: KALEA BAY 2 Mr. Dougherty, This will acknowledge receipt of your June 30, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel, Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 WEB PAGE: From:Aris Dougherty [mailto:adougherty1530@gmail.com] Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 1:19 PM To: Fiala Donna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: KALEA BAY 2 Hello, My name is Aris Dougherty, I reside in Collier County and work in the construction industry. My job will be directly affected in a very negative way if Kalea Bay 2 is halted. I don't understand why anyone wants to hold back Naples' growth and economy. Please consider the hundreds of people that will be affected if this project is halted. Thank you very much for your consideration, Aris Dougherty Naples, FL 1 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:43 PM To: 'Chris.Brasher@Ferguson.com' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Bld #2 Mr. Brasher, This will acknowledge receipt of your June 29, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. Eat William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 11111 We—b.—Page WEB PAGE: F AMENSubscribe to our mailing list: From:Chris.Brasher@Ferguson.com [mailto:Chris.Brasher@Ferguson.com] Sent:Thursday,June 29, 2017 1:39 PM To: McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna<DonnaFiala@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: Kalea Bay Bld#2 To the Collier County Commissioners, I understand that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned citizen who is heavily involved in the construction industry as I work for Ferguson Enterprise which employees 700+associates (quality jobs+ benefits) in Florida in our plumbing division alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be directly affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. Ferguson is very involved in both our communities and by providing quality opportunities, as well as teaching, coaching,training, and furthering developing people's skills. Our industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Chris Brasher 1 • Ferguson a Wolseley Compan Director of Branch Management- Florida District 10355 S Orange Ave. Orlando,Fl 32824 0: (407)856-5161 M:239-823-0935 Ferguson Online -Always Open! http://www.fergusononline.com 2 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday,June 29, 2017 12:38 PM To: 'Ron Bowling' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Mr. Bowling, This will acknowledge receipt of your June 29, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. b�P William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 VYeb age WEB PAGE: AMMO Subscribe to our mailing list: From: Ron Bowling [mailto:ron@acresplumbing.com] Sent:Thursday,June 29, 2017 12:23 PM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Dear Collier County Commissioners, I wanted to send my personal concerns in reference to possible delays in the construction of the next building at the Kalea Bay project. I work for a plumbing company that is currently working on the Kalea Bay project. With the planned start of building#2 we are able to keep our staffing working anticipating the next building to start. If it does not,there will be layoffs due to lack of work. I personally have struggled as many others for the last 8 to 9 years trying to survive the hardships in the most drastic down turn in construction this area has seen. It was a long, slow recovery and we are just now becoming hopeful in our futures in the construction trade and regaining some ground. I am very sensitive in concern with growth and over-development and believe our local government has found a balance for everyone in my personal experience of living here for over 40 years. I was fond of the Wiggins Pass area in the 70's when there was little more than a Marina and some small developments.That is not the case these days and much of that area is built on and believe the very people complaining reside in the adjacent areas probably have not been here for very many years. Nor do they likely reside here year round or earn a living here. Kalea Bay has already been approved and site developed for the future construction of these buildings.The potential opportunities for our working residents and the revenue to 1 local business will be felt county wide and will effect hundreds upon hundreds of the collier working class and business owner residents. Please represent us in allowing this building to proceed as planned. Our livelihoods are counting on you. Sincerely, Ron Bowling Acres&Son Plumbing Inc. 5701 Houchin St Suite#1 Naples, Fl 34109 Office 239-597-5031 Fax 239-597-3740 ron@acresplumbing.com www.acresplumbing.com 2 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:50 AM To: 'Nancy Farnsworth' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Hearing Ms. Farnsworth, This will acknowledge receipt of your June 29, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel, Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Web Page WEB PAGE: _- Subscribe to our mailing list: OSUB$CRIBE From: Nancy Farnsworth [mailto:tennis.nut@mindspring.com] Sent:Thursday,June 29, 2017 11:37 AM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Hearing Dear County Commissioners, As a native Neapolitan, I have seen our county go through many many changes in my 53 years. Some have been very hard to take, yet overall I believe our County has been lead in a good direction with a balanced growth. My livelihood for over 30 years has been in the construction industry. The company I work for made it through the very difficult downturn in the housing/construction market, however only 21 of 192 employees kept their jobs and those who were still employed struggled with significant pay cuts and less working hours. Fortunately, the past couple years it has turned around. My employer is directly impacted by Kalea Bay. There were 25 employees who directly worked on building 1 and 5 others who did Kalea Bay work at the office including myself. If the Kalea Bay building 2 does not proceed, numerous employees, full time residents and your constituents will lose their jobs. Please stand firm against those who oppose this project that has already been approved. Thank you for your service and your consideration in this matter. Nancy Farnsworth 7818 Emerald Circle Naples, FL 2 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday,June 29, 2017 11:58 AM To: 'Rene Acres-Hatch' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Ms. Acres-Hatch, This will acknowledge receipt of your June 29, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Wet~" age.. WEB PAGE: - ' Subscribe to our mailing list: — From: Rene Acres-Hatch [mailto:Rene@acresplumbing.com] Sent:Thursday,June 29, 2017 11:55 AM To: McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Bill McDaniel, I am writing to express my concerns for halting the construction of Kalea Bay 2. I have resided in Naples for over 48 years and have been employed in the construction industry for over 30 years. Tourism is our industry here in Naples and construction is a large part of what keeps Naples growing to accommodate the new comers in our area. Halting the progress of Kalea Bay would have impacts on several areas that should be of concern to ALL Naples residents, not just the few in Glen Eden who might have their view obstructed. Glen Eden should take into consideration that they were entitled to develop their community without opposition from others in the area. Please know the decision that you make concerning this project will set precedence for all future projects and will affect the employment of hundreds of construction workers. I am asking that you please honor your approval of the development of Kalea Bay. Sincerely, Rene' 1 Rene'Acres-Hatch R Acres Plumbing Co LLC 1911 Seward Ave, Suite 3 Naples, FL. 34109 PH: 239-598-0800 FX: 239-597-1590 Rene@acresplumbing.com �j-f •� ACRES . : . PLUME ' .' a• °f. 24 HOUR EMERGENCY SERVICE Website Like us on Facebook 2 FilsonSue From: McDanielBill To: Gregory.Bennett@Ferguson.com Subject: RE: Kalea Mr. Bennett, This will acknowledge receipt of your June 27, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Web Page WEB PAGE: Subscribe to our mailing list: From:Gregory.Bennett@Ferguson.com [mailto:Gregory.Bennett@Ferguson.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 27, 2017 11:23 AM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>;SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Collier county team, My name is Greg Bennett and I work at Ferguson Enterprises. I have been a part of the Kalea project for the past 5 years. I mainly work on multifamily and have got to spend time in high rises both on our side and the other coast. There is nothing that represents Naples better than Kalea Bay. The project is unlike anything else in the state. It's a high level project, that has the quality and look that all of our northern friends are seeking. Many of the clients are also local Naples people looking for a second home. I know many of the buyers and can't explain their excitement to move in. These are people coming for weeks at a time. From a personal level,the stoppage of work would have a major effect on the economy and my family. My company alone has forecasted this work and planned accordingly. Many people have been hired and trained to service this job as we should. We have based things on feedback from sales. I am Estero residence who has a huge desire to move to Naples. I work in Naples, go to church at North Naples and mainly dine down south. My wife asks me every day when we can move. Projects like Kalea keep our dreams alive of being able to make the move down. We are younger(35 1 years old)with 3 kids. Naples schools for high school is what we want. I can't explain how many estero/fort myers friends of mine have the same dream to get down. Projects like Kalea provide the income to achieve this. Yes there are over 300 people on the project but there are a ton more behind the scenes. From the distributers to the designers,we would all be hurt from any stoppage. We are the people who are here year round spending money while others are gone. We are the future leaders of our community. Nothing represents Naples better than Kalea bay. Thanks for your time, Gregory Bennett Builder Sales Ferguson,a Wolseley Company 38 Goodlette-Frank Rd, Naples Fl 34102 USA 0:239-963-0080 C:239-872-2713 gregory.bennett@ferguson.com 2 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 9:04 AM To: Ngh0031 Subject: RE: KALEA BAY SDPA Mr.and Mrs.Taylor,,this will acknowledge receipt of your email dated April 13,2017 and your comments regarding the Kalea Bay Settlement Agreement. While I appreciate receiving your comments, I am taking the liberty of forwarding the County Attorney's response to this subject as follows: The Public Comment portion of the agenda is entitled"Public Comments on General Topics Not on the Current or Future Agenda." The purpose of this portion of the agenda is to allow the public to comment on anything they wish except matters that are on, or will be on, the Board's agenda. I fully expect this matter will be on a future Board agenda. At this point in time the Site Development Plan is still under review by staff. No decision has been made. If and when the Site Development Plan is approved by staff the community will be notified, at which point if there is any objection the matter can be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. Having speakers comment on this process before approval of the Site Development Plan is finalized is contrary to the procedure, is unfair to the Developer, and could ultimately lead to a very poor result in Court for both the County and the community. You are of course free to speak to any of the Commissioners in private about your concern. As an aside I was intimately involved in all aspects of the Settlement Agreement, and I can assure you that if and when the Site Development Plan is finalized, it will be fully consistent with that Agreement. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239) 252-2614 If I can be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me. Ede William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 WEB PAGE: www.colliergov.net/CommissionerMcDaniel Subscribe to our mailing list: I 1 From: Ngh0031 [mailto:ngh0031@aol.com] Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:59 AM To: McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: KALEA BAY SDPA I reside in Glen Eden on the Lakes. The Kalea Bay project is under construction on Vanderbilt Drive in North Naples, with the first tower almost complete and the remaining four towers to be built. A Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) is currently under review by Collier Planning, showing buildings with a separation between buildings that would be one-half the required minimum distance (i.e., a separation of 100 feet measured between towers, and 72 feet measured between parking structures). It is also our understanding that the first tower is at least 50 feet wider than the approved SDP. If the remaining towers were to be built as proposed in the SDPA, the results would be a huge concrete barrier to light and air and view. On April 11th, a group of concerned citizens living in the Vanderbilt Drive area attended a Board of County Commissioners meeting to express concerns over these proposed revisions to the approved plans. Sixteen residents signed up to speak during the Public Comment portion of the meeting. After hearing the first speaker, the County Attorney advised the Board that no further public comments on this issue should be allowed. The rationale given was that procedure required that the Site Development Plan Amendment be approved by staff, after which an administrative appeal could be filed. In our opinion, a review and decision on the Site Development Plan Amendment as submitted should not be left solely to staff, but should be considered in a public hearing before the full Board of County Commissioners to allow input and discussion from all parties. These changes are significant, impactful and would be detrimental to all aspects of this area of Vanderbilt drive. We respectfully ask that a public hearing on this issue be held. Henry & Barbara Taylor 14599 Glen Eden Drive Naples, Fl. 34110 2 My name is Judi Palay. I am a resident in Glen Eden, North Naples, and have been a homeowner there since 2002. More than a year ago, I came before you asking you to please uphold the Settlement Agreement regarding the Cocohatchee Bay PUD — Kalea Bay and the property on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive-- even though it is a less than perfect document. You agreed that it should not be reopened. That Agreement and the Site Development Plans allow 5 towers to go up on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. Incidentally, the height of those, while listed at 200 feet each, is really 220 feet when the height of the two levels of garages are added. Aqua, next door is 11 stories. Arbor Trace, on the other side is 17 stories. The Dunes is 203'. Five of these massive towers? Does that maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods on Vanderbilt Drive? I think not! We will have a wall of cement instead of beautiful sunsets. This is not the first time that this developer has sought a different set of rules for his projects. Unfortunately, most times the community did not learn of these until it was too late. Minutes from some of the planning staff meetings back up our assertions. It was even suggested to him to skew the buildings to enable them to change the distances between. Other communities did not have the protection of the Settlement Agreement and PUD. Planning staff has severely altered those previously approved Plans, changing the building widths- 50 feet wider for each building and the distance between the parking structures down to less than 75 feet. And... along the way, the placement of the buildings, lake, and some of the amenities have changed as well. Apparently, you, our Commissioners, were unaware of these changes. You were circumvented. When we brought each of you a copy of a letter from our attorney sent to County Attorney Jeff Klatskow, each of you said you had not seen it. That letter was to let you know of some of the changes that were being requested for Buildings 2-5. Building 1 is already up. That one got moved 60' closer to Aqua. The other changes are not what was approved on the SDPs and are not minor cosmetic changes. In addition, on March 30, under the FL Freedom of Information Act, we requested information from Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner: Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Mike Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean to learn where else exceptions had been made to building spacing by doing questionable skewing to get spacing reductions. We citizens wanted to present a fair and accurate report to you. A week later—no response except from Attorney Klatskow who knew of no relevant legal suits. We are urging you, on your next agenda, to have discussion on Amendment SDPA PL 2016000242 and allow the many issues it raises to come into the daylight. Please do not allow approval before this open discussion can take place. In addition, we ask you to please review the LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 which states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" which is then shared. This is from the 12/18/2014 CCPC Agenda. While part of this section talks about rezoning, shouldn't the same criteria be applied before making any substantial changes? The 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". I would like to emphasize number 6- "Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; number 9 – Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to the adjacent areas; number 10- Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; number 12- Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare and finally, number 18- Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. These are logical criteria that make sense to consider under any circumstance. I would offer to you a very rough look at proportional building spacing at 200 feet—that is the distance between Aqua and Kalea Bay Building one. Then, please note what it would look like—the entire black paper being the width of a building in Kalea Bay (and please note the width with 50 feet added— the red -- which adds 20% on -- vs the height) when the distance is 100 feet. Again, please note that the parking structures would be less than 75 feet apart. And so, once again, we ask you to please protect your constituents from over- reach which continues to threaten our neighborhoods. Thank you RALF BROOKES, ATTORNEY Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law February 7, 2017 Collier County do Collier County Attorney In Re: Cocohatchee Bav/Kalea Bay Development Issues Dear Collier County I represent a number of adjacent property owners and residents who have the following objections and concerns regarding the above referenced development: 1. The setback between the first building and proposed second building at Kalea Bay does not meet the minimum building setback of 1/2 the buildings sum height(i.e.,the total building heights when added together)which is at least 200' See,Table 3.5 in 4368 OR.Book p .2375,and 4368 OR.Book pp.2415-2416,and instead would provide less than 100 ft. in building separation. a. An administrative deviation should not be used to drastically and substantially reduce the setback between buildings by more than 100' and more than '/2 the required setback. b. It is unreasonable to grant an administrative deviation of more than 100 feet and more than '/2 the required setback without another public hearing to provide an opportunity for adjoining and nearby property owners to be heard regarding this substantial deviation. c. The similar architectural design of the 2 buildings does not alleviate the reduction the views by over 100'through the buildings that would impact the view of adjoining and neighboring residents(sometime colloquially referred to as the"condo canyons"effect). d. The calculation of building height sum for the setback is even greater than 400' because there is a habitable dwelling unit located on 2nd Floor Garage(See,Building Permit Plans depicting MANAGER's QUARTERS on the 2"a Floor Garage). This garage floor containing the managers dwelling unit should have been included in the building height calculation for the purposes of calculating building height sum for building setbacks, -or the manager's quarters should be removed from the building plans. 2. We are also concerned that the developer not miss, and that the County monitor and be aware of, the rapidly approaching,upcoming requirements contained in the Settlement Agreement: a. Of particular concern is the approaching deadline required by paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement for recording Restrictive Covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of the golf course parcel before or at the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the 1st bldg. Kalea Bay Tower 1,which is approaching Certificate of Occupancy in mid-2017 b. Similarly,Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement requires a 10-ft sidewalk be completed before,at or upon C.O. in 2017. We are referring these objections to the County for review and any necessary actions. Best regards, /s/Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway 4107 Cape Coral,Fl 33904 Phone(239)910-5464;fax(866)341-6086 RalfBrookes@gmail.com Attachments Each building is 200+' Sum of Building Height=400+' Building Setback is 200+' t See OR Book 4368 Page 2375 and 2415(attached) /, � rn o P lbc Ow L 3 iv j o N L c VI It tu al QL. 45. , u u ct H { N C C CJ U rill C1 L O' f0 c0. acu .A0 CU ti = C N M 'tS v1 CO to U a °1 v • ^` u iv ami c a) 4, 12 .5 cc ; .5 i a 46' t5 c CC).....tt T t u - ca VI L O 1 � __o`` E V • v o a 4 o c a0 41 C ( T\ 1 L N c v `° L a L 3 ViN, 1 T-' -- 7. r _ 00 l'il — - __ - 1 -- --- i%, O F : ' WC 11 7-M-twnsioll--1--lij XV zi °,, D. 0 © 9 - - I l` /� 1`� 0 I 41; i it I. ,, i i!`moi I E:i; -%;% s i 1- ___:r .1 . : j a , ________ //' c - °":411 5 r i , ,, h: ; ;.... „v...., 1 _ , ..,74 ___. , , _•. , / ,, __ _, . . , _ 1 . . :.....7:,1 ,, , ?„, 0 ...ff./. , . ...... .. Cti ®, EY I . MEZEI _ ►k I C � 0i ® Vw a DAgotil °g � KALEA BAY ,, . litI o '' >_ CONDOMINIUMS Ili111111111i si ��Ill' EI S OR: 4368 PG: 2375 COCOHATCH88 MY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TABLE E I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS "RI" "R2" • HIGH-RISS MULTI-FAMILY Mild-Thr DwatibP hilislorm Lot Area N/A 1 Acre Mldouo Lot Width N/A WA Frost Yard-Interlard Road •t 0.5 BH not las 0.3 BH Dot less than 25 feet thee 25 lett Fruit Yard•Accessary Iaebd1/Parking Structure OS BH not less I 0.5 BH not leu than 25{eel ! thea 25 tea Freat Yard-'Vanderbilt Drive BH N/A • Frost Yard-Accessary Bldg. 50 WA Melo Yard 03 BH 15 Rear Yard Prhaelpal T 0.5 BH iS Rear YardAeosaceY �ILR - IS to Maim Bldg 20 , • l� 33 -- height • •2 Dist oe -� 03 S; •3 as BH not less that 15 fact Pinar Area MIL r • 1200 SF I. i-" @Tlt Maass Heigh*Raft be de venicai Aimee op..mt N collies ekvationtithe hahltebitlNtYastlsoraiwaYasrrs SRg(Sao of May lidslait of two at>ioatr hri laws . • .. ofdessu a as uabach taerLarau Ara distances ate in bat slot otharoiseaatstl ' Terri v• \IlC'1� •i Fort yards shall be taeasrad as follows: A. If the pwo t is served by a public risMd-way.ssloeh is msmsrsd from the adJnvat eight-afiv y tits B. 1f the pascal is sasved by a private nod.aethatt is ataarid from the but daub(If orbedl a edit at pttvaaaat(R ust curbed). 92 Bsridiag bsisht for the walk pwtparry Use addaceas to Arbor True its lbs`R 1'eros shall be IS Noris for a arutiatttu Mists of 150 fes. •3 WMte b-ides Iva a wawa aubitsearal seise see msb4*awed ar other hors ciao amoeba sod walk toe trot panalol raw saotber.the whu les an be fly seduced. 't 3.3 ..../ _- 11:_436.8--PG. 2415 -- r 2. Recreational uses such as, but not limited to, clubhouse, fitness center, , health spa,tennis courts,swimming Pods or similar remotions'uses. 3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planting Services Department Dieter determines to be compatible in the 2:=1l" MRT-District*. 3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I A. Table I II sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" , Residential Districts. B. Standards for parting, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such wodaeds are not specified herein or within the CCocobatchee Bay PUD,are to be in accordance with Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated,required yards, heights,and floor area standards to principal structures. Y -_` C. Off-street . ; ...-. ',�Z •C . \ s shall be accessed by parking i aisles or dri a. are separate . . .. _ . .. which serve more than one development./ space area of not ten feet (10') in width as measured , -1 nt ..,, separate any Patting aisle i or A any ' ... . • . 0." i 'I►T . . . . • 1 ' •,,. ., , : Tam war ; i , . . �j. .. .. , kiinEE r • mow= muimiougnara us Mbar M .F..nr Dwslahip• 21301111111E i Il demes ant Ansa _ WA i-Aw. 1A lairiar e s waw WA WA M newt Testi-L.■d Dead n 03 BH sot Mss as-aWseeles. 114,Majams, _ deo 25 ket r.ai-lest Dor211 4.1_,... Awe Tad-Aees—r!bldg 0.5 BR sat Mss 04.1011esilese Di Bei set less babiia larlltoa_Ue♦tarrr dna 25 lea , dursaidesi da a2l.faa Wrest Turd-Versderldi Drive BR WA NA !Yat Tani-Ae ease s dd& 50 _ WA BiitTard 03 BA ii 15_ Lar Tad Pried's. 03 BH ii 11 • =oar Yard Acorrsrri 15 40 - 1Q 3.2 F 2128106 revision e J . _ . _ OR: 4368 PG: 2416 thassima Bldg Haut 'i20 etorb foratomes 2a 31 Might d 200 feet .2 Mimes M1w.hi.r4ft 8lesebres 03 SEH Dii its iljjamika, ilawii;iel Amnia Thor Ate.1111a. (81) 1100 SP 1000 .12110/EM •" la Oblibios dr h app�rN[fluid.'"Building c i d Msbee die vaniad disuse�n.. 4 free Ib Ent b idie0 leer dew** 1 .d loathe& MOW CC.li.ed beige of two lama Mildew r (ar t4 mimes of dusrd.i.E ee inek 1 ! r f Al dimness us is int a.bes otYswiae noted. •1 Frost yeas*di ba soasaesd u mows: A. VIM peed is rrtwd by a psititie risbt-o[-way.nabs&is mused Ms die sdi.oeot i aFir.f Boe- ck. Nibs psasi is newt by a privies swot nabs&is massa teas ibe tuck of nub(If embed)er odes of parmaa;Of sot=bed). 02 Befidiq blight for tin aoslf property lima agj-'at is Arbor Thee is die-Bi."test ion be jj 41 dories tor a—dram beige of 121;10 fret. _ a3 Mime -- es betilila a --a itl i `q anus foes nae asefras ar.aid wnes sat wad to oat steam,the adtaaeb ft6 ud.sed —\\ / / `14.„...„ \ Iop i : 1 1_ L TGIF. c'IRC. 3.3 ' 2/28/08 fevlslon lets: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 n! 024.00 CUU TO TU lOAID UCOODID in tie OFFICIAL UCOODS of COLLI!! COUTT, FL COMAS 97.00 IITRORIC! 4T! FLOOI 06/10/2000 at 10:460 KNIT I. !FOCI, CLUE UT 7246 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this°t{ ,day of , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle Viand L CI WHEREAS, the PUD j n is also som i sisSveferred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD; and ! / WHEREAS, Lod fil `� ti n o e toy �.�a Tentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, 4ia e '•„ ty' i iQnt concerning the proposed Jr amendment to the PUD's Ba`l gie Management Mk; taie being styled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier CounKei - =�'�i' WHEREAS, on or around May 1,2 ,JLodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Hams, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Harris Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.;and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4x6) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. 1 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. ` As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, '17 they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses • 7 described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this '1 r,✓ I y requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area orsoliprever discontinued or abandoned for any reason, then all of the GQ' ' • including wi 'titation the entire golf course development area, except f¢r tlyse4ot oAsatiowed\for th. two (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green op-n 471•. 't to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the armed ' s S • 'pce . �+�eiisions to these restrictive covenants will require a supe ity vote of the Bo f, Commissioners. 9. To fully satisfy i d�li j idewalks along adjacent off-site EIE C:t1Z public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway en (10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006)in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST,;- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E,1 ROCK,CLERK COLLIER C• Y,F ORIDA By � 1. karimi r By. _ 1-if i�� A - 'Ir SI tS 041IP -.uty lerk TOM ENNING,C • i• • 114nature on -. WI SES; 7- kied2---- Signed Name Ptoelth Print Name / / 1414 `.w‘" Si��!i Name �, e ?M • BOTT ASSOCIATES,LLC a / \,� .d„J ,I 2,c1nps ( a�� / ITS: L1-. . ,.2 c Printed Name \\\ --- Ap. .ved as to form and e• .. t; s . • ,, n > ,""(....... ..„) Je . •, A. K1 T. ow -0 Co Atto y y 'Gp �1�� i TIE CIRC 9 2/28/08 revision Cocohatchee Bay Facts/Time Line The Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved in 2000 and included 532.09 acres of land, 590 dwelling units, 4 towers 20 stories tall, 1 tower 15 stories tall, a golf course with 3 holes west of Vanderbilt and 15 holes east of Vanderbilt. Of the 590 dwelling units, 110 units were approved east of Vanderbilt and 480 units were approved in the towers. The 2000 PUD also included a Bald Eagle Management Plan in which Abbott agreed to a "no construction zone" within 750' of the bald eagles' nest (1500' during nesting season.) When the bald eagle was removed from the endangered species list, Abbott applied for and received approval from state and federal agencies and submitted a site development plan. Planning Commission advised that a PUD amendment to amend the Bald Eagle Management Plan would first be required. May 10, 2005 BCC heard Abbott's amendment and disapproved by a vote of 4-1 . Abbott began litigation in June of 2005. May 1 , 2006 Abbott served a Bert Harris Notice of Claim on the County for over $247 million. At its December 12, 2006 Commissioners authorized making a written settlement offer to Lodge Abbott. April 22, 2008 BCC approved Settlement Agreement. The document was dated June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts on June 10th The Settlement allowed 108 dwelling units to be moved from the eastern parcel to the towers and assured that "if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reasons, then all of the GC Parcel including without limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those portions allowed for 2 residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the amended PUD Preserve Parcel " To read entire settlement go to: http://media.wix.com/ugd/d6f3a1 _6aecd24ad6d948849c6b3cfec23e6cf4.pdf December 31 , 2013- Abbott resubmitted a proposal to build 280 dwelling units on Golf Course Parcel. This included multi-family housing and senior assisted living. March 19, 2014 -At NIM meeting at St. John's Church about 700 concerned citizens voiced opposition to Abbott's proposal. April 14 & 15, 2014- Meetings were hosted by_Commisioner Hiller so developer could meet with HOA leaders from surrounding subdivisions. May 2, 2014- Meeting at Hiller's Orange Blossom office at which new building proposal of 62 homes on % acres lots was shared with HOA leaders. August, 2014- Abbott submitted new proposal to Planning Commission for approval to build 62 luxury homes on1/2 acre lots. December 18, 2014 Planning Commission approved proposal to build 62 homes on 1 acre lots. Richard Grant, developer's attorney stated that building a golf course had been abandoned because golf was no longer popular or profitable. Mid January—March, 2015- Area residents vocalized opposition to opening the settlement agreement, amending it and rezoning the land from golf course to residential. March 24, 2015- At BCC meeting Commissioners Taylor and Fiala refused to support rezoning the land. Commissioners voted 5--0 to NOT reopen the Settlement Agreement. April 7, 2015- Richard Grant, the petitioner's attorney, sent an 8 page letter to County Manager asking BCC for reconsideration and threatening to sue the county if it wasn't granted. April 14, 2015- At BCC meeting Hiller made a motion to bring this matter up for reconsideration. None of the other Commissioners would second it. April 26, 2015- The threat to sue the county was recanted in a $4,000 full page ad in Naples Daily News purportedly as a good-will gesture to the community when in fact the developer had no basis for the suit. On June 1 7, 201 5, Lodge extended a 2004 golf course permit and clear cut two large sections of land. I called Matt McLean's office in September and November and asked that the site be inspected for any violations of the permit. Both times his office responded that all clearing was allowed by the permit. In 2016 the entire interior of the Golf Course Parcel was cleared. RALF BROOKES, ATTORNEY Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law February 7,2017 Collier County do Collier County Attorney In Re: Cocohatchee Bay/Kalea Bay Development Issues Dear Collier County I represent a number of adjacent property owners and residents who have the following objections and concerns regarding the above referenced development: 1. The setback between the first building and proposed second building at Kalea Bay does not meet the minimum building setback of 1/2 the buildings sum height(i.e.,the total building heights when added together)which is at least 200' See,Table 3.5 in 4368 O.R.Book p .2375,and 4368 O.R.Book pp.2415-2416,and instead would provide less than 100 ft. in building separation. a. An administrative deviation should not be used to drastically and substantially reduce the setback between buildings by more than 100' and more than '/2 the required setback. b. It is unreasonable to grant an administrative deviation of more than 100 feet and more than 1/2 the required setback without another public hearing to provide an opportunity for adjoining and nearby property owners to be heard regarding this substantial deviation. c. The similar architectural design of the 2 buildings does not alleviate the reduction the views by over 100'through the buildings that would impact the view of adjoining and neighboring residents(sometime colloquially referred to as the"condo canyons"effect). d. The calculation of building height sum for the setback is even greater than 400'because there is a habitable dwelling unit located on 2nd Floor Garage(See,Building Permit Plans depicting MANAGER's QUARTERS on the 2"d Floor Garage). This garage floor containing the managers dwelling unit should have been included in the building height calculation for the purposes of calculating building height sum for building setbacks, -or the manager's quarters should be removed from the building plans. 2. We are also concerned that the developer not miss, and that the County monitor and be aware of, the rapidly approaching,upcoming requirements contained in the Settlement Agreement: a. Of particular concern is the approaching deadline required by paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement for recording Restrictive Covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of the golf course parcel before or at the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the l'bldg. Kalea Bay Tower 1,which is approaching Certificate of Occupancy in mid-2017 b. Similarly,Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement requires a 10-ft sidewalk be completed before,at or upon C.O. in 2017. We are referring these objections to the County for review and any necessary actions. Best regards, /s/Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral,Fl 33904 Phone (239)910-5464; fax(866)341-6086 RalfBrookes@gmail.com Attachments Each building is 200+' Sum of Building Height=400+' Building Setback is 200+' rt See OR Book 4368 Page 2375 and 2415(attached) it L L 4. o u tO 4C ...., .,z 5 cz, 2 3 -) o QS- 0 E q � Naas 4). C ea CJ U i y L. C G1 vs on v c —itsul m N a °1 a, ill .7"r-74 a) 0111 'b da oc 5a`) COe. a, L 4J a m c �4 d aS u „ cis o V) E E go V a � it CDon 13"- EKs L 3 OR: 4368 PG: 2375 COCOHATCHEB BAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TABLE 1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS "RI" "R2" • HIGH-RISE MR.TI-FAIaLY Matti-Fondly Dwellings Mtatount Let Area N/A 1 Aare . Mies suet Lot Width WA N/A Front Yard-Internal Road •t , 03 BH not less 03 BH not las than 25 het thea 25 feet Wrestilar Yard-Accessory Bldg. 03 BH not less 03 BH not las Intiothan 23 feet than 25 feet Frost Yard-Vanderbilt Drive BH N/A Frost Yard-Aoesaary Bldg. S0 j N/A Shia Yard 03 BH } 13 Rear Yard Prisetpl - 0.5 BH 15 Rear Yard ar Aoory .1�R C(j S ——10 Maxims Bldg 20 • • 35 WightDistance - r-*:r .. 03 SB •3\\ 03 BH not lea '� �• \ than 3S feet Meer Ana * r,,„\:,.., � l to SI+ r,4 . r. ,_ r Jr- fa (SOWN NdO):theildleg thplia be the vertical distma hoe ` habitable finished floor tirades so the opponent /' wilkd elevation of the .� SRlt(Sara etBydiq >< of-ttwoadjacent treadie0 atdeetwii�la amtbiatearisimmea. AS dktrtns as in tees eels et envthe mod / t t C IRI/ 9 Hoot yards shall be seaweed as follows: A. If the Assad h served by a public right-of-way.snbaek is miesaed from the*Mom right-of-way lies B. if the pascal it served by a Private road.sabre*is asesered from the hot of comb(Wombed)mbed)err edge of proems*(h eat curbed). '2 8ridisB heielt for the hath property U..Mimeo w Arbor Tom is the"R 1"tea shall be 1 S Marius for a reasi Bute hire of 150 feet. *3 mother.the setbacksere COMMIS amt itectend Herne we nettled.stewed or offset front one another.sad walk we hot math so ants be y reduced. 1 1 3.3 -- - OR 4368 PG: 2415• • I 2. Recreational uses such as, but not limited to, clubhouse, fitness coater, health qua,tennis courts,swimming pools or similar recieatiooal uses. 3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with die foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Department Director determines to be in thehe2:'R1! sd wR2"Districts 3.5 DRVELOPPARNT{JG STANDARDS Districts. 1 A. Table I 11 sots forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential Districts. B. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD, are to be in aocordaoce with Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yuck, heights,add floor area standards apply to principal structures. C. Off-street • -.' •• C• , • \�wm. shall be accessed by Parkins aisles or dri ,, a. are separate • _ • • which save more than one development./ space area of not ten feet (10') in width as measured frim - .. ►.- • • ,... _ . •. shal separate any pig aisle or driveway froom any • 4001.01118 T . . l •. - •, • . 7 • I 11 D1VAAPMENtrSTANDARDS - 1 RIGH-R1611 aduimataamia MB Maur t+a.Irinrdhr Dwsige 1iatai om Let Ana NIA -,As.e 1 Ac Mielenn Let wl WA WA HA Float Yard•Lttsrad Lod •t 03 BR sot ins 041-111-aM•IM 11,,Bit act hat tesla 25 feet trar2O-in dna 2S tut lne t Toed-Accooaei BM4. 0.5 BR dot Mas 0411il esonoo caRaimunt, heeYiihaidatBMsoaare Om 25 foot +6ea•aifest rhsa 2S�� Frost Yana-VaniaAtat Dein BR hest Yard•Am ase/ SO l+i A jf(d Tarr! 03 Bear Yard lriaegal 0.3 BH soar Yard Aooeesri 15 4 IQ 3.2 2/28/06 revision .... . .. .. OR: 4368 PG: 2416 .........-.. r---- tmind....Mg Hsi& 20 Aeries tor itwir as 11 i height 4200 ket 62 Memel Between Peledpal fifevelleros 0.5 SIIII Orriaiirflef4SID flailiakit , iierwlkissi jeedifigi flees Area Min. (S.P.) 11100 SIF UMW _ linaiLM IAS( He**BMW.height eholl be Ws weed durum weaseted from the ant hebialie Welshed floor elevolos es , die uppermost auleied milks dordires tithe stretiore. . # . , SIM 0Aoll of Bandiall MOO: Coldimi balk d two adjscas belifingt for the reposes of deectiolisies steed i I reosisoeueeta. i Al defteces we is fret mho otherwise sow& .1 lbws pees ail be swasered es follow A. Mho prod is weld by a Rabe right-ii-way.labs&is soessersd Irmo dm edjeced Mild-of-vrey la. B. Wilms mad is served by a primes mad.mama is ammentel frees de berk of odds Of codost)or edge at pevamod 01 set embed). •2 Badly Might Om tie Berth peoperty Wee adjamot to Mbar'DM laths"110."mew dna be 12 411 dories kr a mmizems froisbi of 1.71 410 frue. 10----------1(M10 # - 43 Mom buddies,Mob a ensoome -w-mtsiegritro)er°Om gem am medset,md mills we sot wad to age weber,the setheeb seleeett-: k - Z -., ..1'29"Callillajlig"41118"111141"1111111U11.1111"1111"All ti.... '....d . *....,/ ...... ,k , ,...s 'S 7Tif E ClIC i 3.3 2/28/08 revision 1 I , 1 i 1 il il ., i , I . , iisi ...., I: na yasdati SAW+ i',HI I < 1 I.; ' .i b -.I-_Q o:h.,:g.) VI r• z 11 1 ii I 1 111 41 II 1 II I Ili 1111111 swniNiwoalloo < .,; -,t I- ,., 01;1 it, il ii 1, f It 1.1 it. ....•"' i I IlL,: I iii,,:liiiiii ”:11o1)..: ILI— AV9 V31VN X :4 ''' • gniti la g 3"'g ... / .. 1 i 11 1 i 1 1 . N. i te/ ! J ' : fr ' 1 000 Al % : . Al --: -:: - , I • • ' ,,,' I '', +."......""),. 1 ,___*.• i , a •i 11.11Milliw MN: I. :1 1 a - i it ' 1 ' I 0 re.9" ____. i ,,,„ , .' -------fl ID _ , • AIX , 1: II A ___, _ 1__ . _ t , (-- ---- ' P i L , ..' • f „ 4:E3 ---> 0 : \\ , r,---- 111 4• 1. Ej L,. .,13 0 77.'-'.-----',/ , 1 I ' i., n ---- tr i ‘/ ‘' / / 41 .--- , i I/ - I.- _ _ .--,1 _..„ __. 1 . / , . 1 \ ,. ''-----,z-__-_-„, ,______ L , __ _El _rii.....a--— a \ A .s7 I. \air --.• es , a L. D \ .0 ,,,,, ,. to4,- ./..9,s 0 us)? a ; a i .1W774 . . -1'.• •—_—_ - --t 1 a i AIM a - ... 6=4 CI A I il „.„ .. a ' i ""i ' foil I , 0 L*----4'l"----4 I 0 '7/7 e. 1111:1 :- .• -1 i, MIL:11" 1.E.t.i. I:1g, low,.., i - , . 0 ..- ,. „ r ... h ;........m.'",..{ —4- , a ri.1 _. . ,...1. Ir 1; ,•' t ;• '. ' .. , - .- --- ------- - ------------ - --- __ ___ -- _ -----tet__ — Wu: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 11C 111 $21.00 Cull TO tU MAID UCOIDID in tke 0??ICAC 11COZD3 of COLLIZZ COM, 11 COINS 11.00 111110TTIC1 411 11001 06/101200! at 10:4111 Dfl ? 1. 110CI, CLLR( ZIT 7240 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this NV.%day of , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle Viand WHEREAS, the PUD i ion is also sommst ferred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD; and WHEREAS, Lodgl fil l4 d o -ee of I Turentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, F741-1-i4 �• e "•�� ty' i4iin concerning the proposed i ti amendment to the PUD's Bal gle Management Pik; 2I/e being styled Lodge Abbott • Associates. LLC v. Collier Couno4 Ena WHEREAS, on or around May 1—,--2U0437—Lodge Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Hams, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Harris Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.;and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4x1) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. ` As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy,Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses ‘,,C7 described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this r.✓ jar requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area orol� ever discontinued or abandoned for any reason, then all of the G . including wi i t \tion the entire golf course /; development area, except fur tlos- ov for th• tvito (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green opn •07y, to\the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the ar i -. "I I • 'pre!). , e1risions to these restrictive covenants will require a supe ity vote of the Bo f F,Aupy Commissioners. / 9. To fully satisfy i �dflt j tdewalks along adjacent off-site ILL L alt public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway en (10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006)in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST;:• BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGIR E,$ROCK,CLERK COLLIER CS Y,F ORIDA ' - - By �l �ji""�� By: _ 1i : .. a •tQ Chit r -.uty lerk TOM ENNING,C • I' • ' signature °AO�i,''• WI SES; 7' kig-e--- Signed Name I C410.4 7: P20esEzOck Print‘'.4 Name / • i ag2...A..„.....„. Si.� s Name i S =w BOTT ASSOCIATES,LLC �L ,/J/J Ll/Q�� ITS: ,1: t ,.,s‘ Printed Name -- Ap. .ved as to form i and e• - 1; - cr''. c_Jirl-7 N Je ! A. KI To ow 'Coy Atto y Ajp4._________//sLikir? 41EC iRC 9 2/28/08 revision ;mail-FW:,DFVLP 5699-Rupnow J RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay NI Grnail FW: DEVLP 5699 - Rupnow / RE: Questions / Cocohatchee Bay - Kalea Bay Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:57 AM ScavoneMichelle<MichelleScavone d©colliergov.net> To: "rupnowdiane@gmail.com <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>, Sco tC ri < hri S OttDecCoin gov.net>, BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>, LevyMichael <MichaelLevy@ 9 <ConnieDeane@colliergov.net>, BlevinsCaroline <CarolineBlevins@colliergov.net>, McKennaJack <JackMcKenna@colliergov.net>, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>, FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net> Mrs.Rupnow, Staff has received your correspondence titled Course Parcel"uestions and Kalea Bay" and have provided the en Eden on the Lakes Homeowners Have Regarding the Cocohatchee Bay following responses.For clarity purposes,your specific questions are provided below with staff responses in bold. 1. How many acres of wetlands have been cleared for the "golf course"? How many acres of wetlands have been preserved? Does that meet the minimum requirement? Mitigation? RESPONSE: Permitting for wetland areas, including mitigation for impcted wetlands, are Perm t for the entire site. Per handled at the State level.The site has an existing Environmental Resource the Settlement Agreement/Planned Unit Development(PUD),the development is required to provide 308.0+/- acres of Open Space (Preserve,Lakes and Landscape Buffers);the development currently has 292.09-acres within existing Collier County Conservation Easements(CCCE), 5.78- acres of retained wetlands and 1.46-acres of retained uplands outside of the CCCE, 8.20-acres in Lakes and 1.41-acres in landscaped buffers (308.94-acres total). 2. Has the gopher tortoise colony been relocated? If not, how is it being protected? RESPONSE:The Gopher Tortoises within the impact areas were relocated offsite to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FW thethose burrows sites. have been fenced in for burrows remain in the upland preserve nearthe pond protection. 3. Where will people park when they come to golf? Where will entrance/exit be? Show me https:/Imail.google.com/mailPui=2&ik=515654168x&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8do5259of6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 1 of ?mail-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay on current plans. RESPONSE:The Site Development Plan (SDP) for the golf course development(AR-694)identifies a future clubhouse area that is accessed from US41. No parking areas were approved as part of the SDP approval. Per the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD, Section 4.3 F. parking will be provided based on the size of the clubhouse and will include the golf course parking. A Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) is required for any future clubhouse and associated parking. 4. Will the tunnel under Vanderbilt Drive atesth t Glused? en In has 67?5' of buffer adjacent toyou it o clarify buffers.The Settlement Agreement and that the developer has 100' of buffer. That land was originally intended for Livingston Road construction to connect Vanderbilt to 41. RESPONSE:The Tunnel shown on the approved' tionsns forth4s mprovementSThe approved SDP P (AR- 9 ) notes that it ito be completed y others.The County has not received any app shows an existing 100' preserve area adjacent to Glen Eden. 5. Has that road been abandoned and has that land been vacated to Glen Eden &developer. Golf course plans [SDP-2001-AR-694] sent from Jack McKenna's office dated October 1, 2015 showed a "200' min. setback for single family en and the golfooucourse PUD drse?/ (TYP)" Does that have anything to do with the buffers between Glen Ed RESPONSE: It appears you are referring to the Preservation Easement/Right-of-Way Reservation that is located north of the Cocohatchee Bay PUD, identified as Tract F of Glen Eden Phase One. That future roadway is not included in the County's Long Range Transportation Plan. In regards to the two residential units allowed in the GC Section of the Plan Unit Development(PUD) Master Plan,they have not been approved as part of the existing SDP (AR-694). If proposed in the future, they would be required to meet the setbacks established in the Settlement Agreement and Section 4.4 of the PUD: 200'from PUD boundaries,col'fromude any course uired district yard.boundaries and private roads.The 200'to a PUD boundary wo ud l sides of the 6. I want you to show me on currentEdenplans HHow much is bthe buffer on letween G C. and Tarpon Cove? roposed golf course. How much is between G.C. & Glen RESPONSE: Per the approved SDP (AR-694)there is an existing 100' preserve arda between ke, berm, golf course and the northern PUD Boundary with Glen Eden.There is an approved landscaping and fence/wall between the golf course on the west side of Tarpon Cove; per the approved SDP,there is approximately 100-150' between boundary of Tarpon Cove asrfuturre ty line. The approved plans identify the area on the northern development. https://mail•google.com/mallPui=2&ik=515654168x&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 2 of mail-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 7. Is parcel 6 used in the G.C. plans—how? Road? RESPONSE:There is no parcel 6 shown on the approved plans. 8. So, when the developer shows up requesting a change in the rooftop, size of the lakes or distance between buildings, who in the Planning Dept. checks the request against the "acceptable deviations" in the Settlement Agreement before the request is approved or denied? RESPONSE: Staff would review any proposed changes to the site plan for consistency with the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD.The Planning Director and Zoning Manager would be the authority to determine if any deviations are acceptable. 9. (I looked at plans submitted to the SFWMD and those plans show tennis courts and guest suites in that area. Shouldn't the plans show the same land usage in that area? The diagram on the Kalea Bay website also shows tennis courts and guest suites in that area.) Which plans show the TRUTH??? RESPONSE:The west side of Vanderbilt Drive,on the northern portion of the PUD,have been approved with Tennis,guest cottages, parking and a maintenance building with the SDPA, PL20150000420. 10. We would like to see a plan of the entire Kalea Bay complex—not just Tower One. RESPONSE:The current development is split into three separate Site Development Plans.The golf course, east of Vanderbilt Drive,is included in AR-694. Building 1,the Clubhouse,tennis courts, guest cottages and maintenance building is included in SDPA-PL20150000420, Kalea Bay Phase I. Buildings 2-5, Kalea Bay Phase II-VI was originally approved by SDP-AR-5284 and is currently being amended by SDPA, P120160002242 (currently under review). 11. Where are we in the permitting process on the land east of Vanderbilt? Is there a time limit on completing the "golf course?" Are these plans approved forever or do they ever expire? When do they expire? RESPONSE:The area east of Vanderbilt has an approved SDP,AR-694 and is currently under construction. Once construction has commenced,the permits/plans are considered active. All infrastructure improvements within 30 months of the pre-construction meeting and any subsequent extension, per LDC 10.02.03 H.3. 12. Where are we in the site plan for Kalea Bay west of Vanderbilt? Does Tower 2 have all its permits in place and approved? RESPONSE:Towers 2-5 are currently under review for SDPA approval (P120160002242). https://mail.google.com/mailOui=2&ik=515654168x&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 3of' .mail-FW:,DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions I Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 13. (*** If you go to the Kalea Bay website and look at the diagram of the towers,they appear to be much closer together than on the SDP's.)How can that be okay? RESPONSE: Setbacks are based on the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD Section 3.5 Table II. Per the approved PUD,the,minimum separation between structures is half the building height; however, buildings with common architectural theme that areangled,de administratively reduced. or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another,the setbacks nan The SDPA under review shows buildings with a separation of at least 100' measured from the towers and 72' measured between parking structures. 14. How do cabanas and guest suites and tower manager's homes affect the maximum 590 density? RESPONSE: Cabanas and guest suites are considered permitted uses and are not counted as dwelling units. On behalf of Christopher 0. Scott,AICP, LEED-AP Planning Manager - Development Review Michelle Scavone, GMD Operations Coordinator From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 4:00 PM To: BosiMichael Subject: Questions Dear Mike, Thanks for meeting with me today. I am attaching the list of questions we have about the Cocohatchee Bay golf course and the Kalea Bay towers project. Please forward them to Jack McKenna or Matt McClean or the proper person who can answer these questions for us. https:llmail.google.comlmailOur=2&ik=515654168x&view=Pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 4 of email-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29117,3:15 PM In reviewing the responses below for Diane I think there is a problem with the answer to Question 13. The separation between buildings is 0.5 the Sum of Building Height, not Building Height. Attached is how I understood this requirement when presented to the Planning Commission when I was a member. Brad Schiffer AIA 239.254.0285 FYI I received this response from County Growth Management Dept. today. Please read and provide your feedback. Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Forwarded message From: ScavoneMichelle <MichelleScavone@colliergov.net> Date: Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:57 AM Subject: FW: DEVLP 5699 - Rupnow / RE: Questions/ Cocohatchee Bay- Kalea Bay To: "rupnowdiane@gmail.com" <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>, ScottChris<ChrisScott@colliergov.net>, BosiMichael <MichaelBosi©colliergov.net>, LevyMichael <MichaelLevy c©Dcolliergov.net>, DeaneConnie <ConnieDeane@colliergov.net>, BlevinsCaroline <CarolineBlevins@colliergov.net>, McKennaJack <JackMcKenna@colliergov.net>, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>, FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net> Mrs.Rupnow, Staff has received your correspondence titled"Questions Glen Eden on the Lakes Homeowners Have Regarding the Cocohatchee Bay"Golf Course Parcel" and Kalea Bay" and have provided the following responses.For clarity purposes,your specific questions are provided below with staff responses in bold. https://mail.google.corn/mailpui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 6 of ,mall-F.W:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17,:3:1b YM Thanks! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:18 PM To: Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>, David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>, Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>, Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>, Ralf Brookes <Ralf@ralfbrookesattorney.com> Cc:jodiebert@reagan.com, brad@taxis-usa.com, Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>, nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Bcc: "feegroup@aol.com"<feegroup@aol.com> FYI I received this response from County Growth Management Dept.today. Please read and provide your feedback. Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 [Quoted text hidden) Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com> Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:33 PM To: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> FYI Brad Schiffer AIA 239.254.0285 From: Brad Schiffer AIA [mailto:brad@TAXIS-usa.comi Sent: Sunday,January 29, 2017 3:33 PM To: 'MichaelBosi@Colliergov.net' <MichaelBosi@Colliergov.net>; 'ChrisScott@Colliergov.net' <C h ri sScott@ Co l l ie rgov.n et> Subject: RE: FW: DEVLP 5699 - Rupnow/ RE: Questions/ Cocohatchee Bay- Kalea Bay https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 5 of Gmaii-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17, 3:15 PM 13. (*** If you go to the Kalea Bay website and look at the diagram of the towers,they, appear to be much closer together than on the SDP's.)How can that be okay? RESPONSE: Setbacks are based on the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD Section 3.5 Table II. Per the approved PUD, the minimum separation between structures is half the building height; however, buildings with common architectural theme that are angled,skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another,the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The SDPA under review shows buildings with a separation of at least 100' measured from the towers and 72' measured between parking structures. On behalf of Christopher O.Scott,AICP,LEED-AP Planning Manager - Development Review Michelle Scavone, GMD Operations Coordinator 2 attachments PUD Table 1.pdf —1 75K distance between buildings.pdf 42K https://mail.googie.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 7 of; attachment 919x638 pixels Sports enthusiasts will also have plenty to cheer t.=;. for, from Florida Everblades Hockey and arena fti football with championship-winning Florida Tarpons at nearby Germain Arena or Spring Training baseball games with the Boston Red Sox and Minnesota Twins in Fort Myers in nearby Fort Myers. There's also great tennis, sport fishing, power boat races and even the world famous swamp buggy races on the "Mile of Mud" at Florida SouThwes:For da is farrec as The Golf Caoi:al of Sports Park. Of course, no sport may enjoy greater the Worlc. local significance than golf. With its prolific per capita composite of public and private holes, the region has been heralded as "The Golf Capital of the World." Southwest Florida is home to some of the finest fairways on the planet and fortunately, quite a few can be found close to Kalea Bay. From the courses of Cypress Woods, Eagle Lake, Heritage Bay and Naples Beach Hotel to that of Tiburon at the Ritz Carlton Golf Resort, (home of the annual Franklin Templeton Shootout), Kalea Bay is positioned in the epicenter of a golfer's paradise. For all that's been referenced, bear in mind this is just a fraction of what can be found close to Kalea _ _rY4-.Bay. Families will appreciate the proximity to -+ schools, supermarkets, parks, churches, s; healthcare services and more. There's still much is more in outdoor activities, entertainment and rhprichprl rnmmtinity p;rpntt that takes nlarp P3 (-13 s I rcT)1 ,e ',:i „4 _--.-+ (6' CD 06 a -0. 0-• 0 a' D. * 5: a -----.: a0 0 (7) ,a) 0 00 op0 OCDw a ow -0a 0 -.. cn .5- 3 eD 3 3- (1) o c o o. 0 CD CD O D -4- ZD- aj- 7--,-+- 0- 0- '-< (D --, 0 c ---0, -< 7 0 .... - D D-JD (D . o .., C 9 0 c E X E 0 ii3 (cf3 a x ...... (5+' (f+ u) 4, -4. D z =:. 00 1-,,- 5" 5 -is --zr: 0 , C CD 00- 3 z a0 0 In --4. -4.• 0 ..."` 3 o3- CO -0 CD .5, T)--CD D. ..-+- 0 ° 0 30 0 FIT a E. (,)3 Cn 3 (D 3 ° ....(.— * ..+- 0 3 D. cr) 3 0 Dc 0x cn ii5- c = :•-• 0 CA --, 0 -‹ -4, -,, CO -(Pt' 0 cD -0 0 E N) (.0 co 0 0 = (1) cn c-ii- di (no cr) 3- 0- 8 a CD 0 CD t"'"I • --3 -3 CD cD cp — D -t cn a -% R 8 < u) _4_ u) 0 (i5' 0 D 3 (f) ,-,-- 0 0 of) 0 = n 00 cn . c 6 0 --4: 0- CD - Z Fn % Ft- 0 0 -- 9'. - < 41 C 0 -4- --, Er"). 0 0 < 3 2 .. O a ci. a 0 cn 6 Cn a — o , CCDCD (D D ii3- 0 a D. 30 p PCJ 0 0D Cl:) 3• (0 Z (0 ET (i) -0 a 3 a CD. 37c- (5 c) Sp.. a D -0 C0 * 0 .CD ( 8.•< 3. (.0 a 5 3 Cn (I) 0 cri ET; ... - Cl) =4= 0 0 c CD D 0- 0) D"CR 0-0 -1 0 ,-,Z 0 3 a) 0 0 3-• 3 -t cr) En CD 0 0 a O 0 o Fi 5 O a) 0 0) ci) 0 a) 3 -< G--) 7 -0 0 00 DC 00 a 0 5 D -..74,- a 5.),Z 5 0 =c Ty- 0 0 P-- FiT 0 .-+ < C) 0 ..-6 3- 0 < 0 0 P ann /1Corrynis.5 1.6 n January 11, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think it's a good point to bring up, because it brought up a lot of discussion we needed to have about habitable. And Mr. Yovanovich has even provided a new definition of habitable, at some point we have to look at today. Although it turns out there are definitions in some of our codes, twice, two instances in fact, and they're in the code of laws. And by the way, like you just said, the applicant is in line with what those definitions fit. Let's go back to 10 first and see if there's anything that we need to discuss in paragraph 10 that we don't feel we finished last time or that's subject to the underlined and crossed out sections of the paragraph we have in front of us today based on the county attorney's draft language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, we were submitted a new development standard for the multi-family high-rise buildings. It actually says -- I guess R-1 is the zone on it. Could we put that up on the monitor? This is something that was submitted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got the SDP -- he's got the table from the SDP, not the development standard table, but the standard that was supplied in the SDP package. It was a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And my conversation is going to be on setbacks. There is one concern I have in that the setbacks for roads I wanted to review. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, you'll tell me if this is the right document, please. Is that the right one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it is. Rich, see the line, it's the third one down, the front yard distance from the internal road. It says it's going to be 50 percent of the building height, which we know in our case is 100 feet. The buildings are 200 feet tall. Building two, three, four have a distance less than that. Is that a Page 46 January 11, 2008 problem? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, could you repeat your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you look at the standards, the front yard internal road setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is for the R-1 standards table? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, multi-family. You'll see that the requirement is for 100 feet, and some of those are -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, the explanation is, is that is measured to the garage, not the high-rise portion of the building, okay? So that's where those distances are equal to the garage. And as you know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The garage isn't that tall. So there isn't a problem. Second thing, put up -- you sent us a drawing that shows the site lines. And if you could focus in on the plan that's on the upper left side. It's a site plan called key map. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that the one you're referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, blow up the plan in the lower right. And the reason I'm looking at that is that does -- upper left, I'm sorry. It's called key map. If you could make that the full screen, that would be best. Maybe a little less screen. And my concern is that, we discussed this last time, is the setbacks. The setbacks in the development standards are to be one-half the combined height of the units. Well, I like the one with the black, that's why I was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You like the black one better? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it points out my concern. And my concern is that the setbacks in the development plan call for 200-foot setback. The buildings are all 200 foot in height. Added together, you get 400 feet. Divide it by two you get 200 feet. And these setbacks are a lot closer. Page 47 January 11, 2008 You're requesting us to allow to bring it down to 100 feet. And the concern is this is going to be just one wall of buildings as you go up Vanderbilt Beach Drive. Now, I know where you're coming from, you're going to say well, we twisted the buildings. We have -- first of all, I don't think the site plan would show the buildings parallel -- the walls parallel met the setback to begin with. So all along through this whole process the setbacks were never -- between buildings, distance between buildings were never being met. What you actually did in the current design is you kind of rotated them a little bit and, you know, even -- again I go back to this October 9th letter from PMS, Inc. and it says that, you know, that the buildings didn't meet it. They were stating that in their -- and she states, however, the buildings have been slightly rotated to ensure compliance with the development standards. So the concern I have is that I don't think the development standards -- I think the development standard is intended for the setbacks as described in the chart, in the table, which would essentially produce a square of open space between the units. What you're asking for is to allow that to be brought down to half that dimension, or essentially half a square between them, which will give these things the appearance of a wall when you look at it from different vistas on Vanderbilt. So you're requesting that in here. So why are you requesting that, to make the site plan buildable or a desire or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: To make it buildable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in the original layout it did not meet the standards shown? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I -- before Richard answers, could you show me what part of the settlement agreement you're referring to that they're asking for that's different than what they already received in the PUD? Page 48 January 11, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In 10, the minimum separation of the habitable portion of the building shall be one-half the sum of the height of the habitable portion of the building, not to exceed 100 f t of separation for the habitable portion of the building. a again is First of all, putting in there the one-half of the height hag just -- that's a teaser, because you know you can't make . httI So the concern is that -- the problem is that theneighbors, think, and I wasn't on the board then, I don't know what testimony was. But the intention was is to have these buildings spaced apart by pushing them up against each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still trying to get to -- I'm trying to understand where you're going. I'm sure Richard could answer it, but it may not help me try to figure out where you're going. If that's possible, I'd like to. I think the sentence you're referring to should have been where it changed, if I remember correctly from our last dlscussion sum of the height of begins on Page 7, buildings shall be one-halfthe habitable portion of the buildings and shall be a minimum of 100 feet of separation for the habitable portion of the buildings. feet. And if I recall correctly, it was never not to exceed That would be ridiculous. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I'm reading that -- one of the other comments I had further, Mark, is that the way it's written, it's actually locking it to be less than 100 feet does that fix CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you about putin, your problem? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I think that if the project was sold to have a 200-foot separation between buildings, it should not have a 100-foot separation between buildings. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, it was never sold that way. The commission saw -- at that time saw the entire PUD document. And in that PUD document it provided for a mechanism to reduce the Page 49 January 11, 2008 separation of structures. And it said there had to be skeweda common architectural theme and the buildings need to bebasically not parallel. So the commission saw this. We provided an exhibit when we did the neighborhood meetings. Yet if you look at the exhibit, you could see that the structures were not 200 feet apart, we were only going about-- did we have a line on there that says the distance between buildings? No. But if you looked at the scale that was on that drawing, you would see that these buildings were not 200 feet apart. So I don't think we ever sold this as they were going to be 200 feet apart, else we wouldn't have had the common architectural language in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the common architectural language, let's make that simple. You're building the exact identical building. We could discuss whether that's good or bad. I personally wonder. So it's obviously common, they're twins. Everything, everybody is going to look alike, according to your SDP. MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, they're quintuplets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they're quintuplets. So we don't have to worry about them being a common architectural theme, they're identical. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've covered that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the concern is though -- but I think there's a clause in there that I know you're hanging on, and that is that if you do skew the buildings or twist them, then you can move -- the buildings can have less than the dimensions shown. Now, I think what that means from a planner, and Susan's our chief planner, that you have a spacing required. Yes, you can twist them a little bit, and if that does cause that dimension to be less, that's not a problem. I don't think it means no setbacks or no separation once you twist them. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're not trying for no separation. Page 50 January 11, 2008 We're just trying to implement the provision in the code -- I'm sorry, the PUD, that already says if you do these things we can minimize, reduce the building separation. I provided some language in an e-mail that says it has to be a minimum of 100 feet for the habitable tower portion of the structure, the parking garages will still meet their one-half the sum of the building height. We don't think under this site plan, frankly, that it's going to look like a wall of buildings. We think that it's going to look very nice. I mean, frankly, they're angled all the way up. The only issue that you were raising is there were two buildings that arguably were not skewed and they were parallel. So we wanted to make it clear, we didn't want to get into an argument down the road, you know, parallel means one thing in geometry. And I think I told you the last time I was here I wasn't very good at geometry. But once you skew it one degree, you're no longer parallel. And we just wanted to say, listen, you're going to end up with buildings that are a minimum 100 feet apart on the towers. We think from a view corridor coming down Vanderbilt Road with the landscaping buffer that we provided you, this is going to look fine, it's going to look nice, it implements the existing PUD, and it wasn't a change to the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But back to what you said earlier, Richard, I think much like -- remember when I wanted you to look at this drawing, you wanted us to look at the other drawing, you can't see the building masses on those other drawings? I think most people would not notice the distance. Obviously I had to take out a scale to see what the distance was on the submitted PUD to find out what they are. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here in a little bit. So if we could get to some point you feel we can break, Page 51 January 11, 2008 Brad -- Mark -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he walked away, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I know that. No, Pm just suggesting if you at some point -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can take a break any time you want. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I was just answering my client's question. eve i h�� t-ke re-- • • COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Anyway, my concern is that we put a chart in the table, that's really what prevails. And the exhibit, you know, there's a lot of caveats on it stating that it's subject to change and all the other things. So I think anybody relying on that data would be relying on the table. I think what the table means, and we can get some testimony from staff, that there's a massing expected. In this case everybody ex ected a square of open space between these buildings that, yes, if you rotated them or did something like that, of course the corners might swing in less to that dimension. So in other words, if it's 190, 180 feet once you rotate them -- let me wait till the side bar is over. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, we could debate this point probably all day. The PUD says what the PUD says. There's a footnote that specifically allows for the buildings to get closer together if you meet the criteria of the PUD. We're not asking for any changes of the PUD document related to building separation. What we simply are trying to do is make it less ambiguousthe for both staff and us and for the general public to understand what separation will be. And what we're saying is it will be a minimum separation for that livable portion of the building of 100f debate the t. I wasn't prepared and didn't think we were going to original PUD document. It was adopted, we're implementing it. We're. trying to make it clear. Had they not wanted -- if there had been an Page 52 January 11, 2008 intent that you would never be able to reduce the building separation, there wouldn't have been that footnote. And candidly, there would be a provision in the Land Development Code itself that allows for common architectural theme to result in the reduction of building separation from the minimum standards. It would have said thou shalt never be closer than 200 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here. And we'll come back at 10:15. questions Vigliotti and Ms. Caron both have at some point in this issue. So when we get back, Brad can finish with his. We'll get into Mr. Vigliotti's and Ms. Caron and we'll go from there. 10:15 we'll return. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, we'll resume the meeting where we had left off. And Mr. Schiffer was workingon on ts Pa some questions concerning the last two sentences on r finish- es,rhes, Mrg e 6 and on Page 7 of the settlement agreement. Aft Vigliotti was next, and then Ms. Caron. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. go back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess, Rich,a sectionjust to to of code One thing, you mentioned that in the LDC there's -- and again, this that says if you have a common architectural county, one of its problem is it makes everything g look the same, but we'll assume that's good, that's a given -- that if you rotate it you can reduce the separation between buildings. Is that -- I don't think that's in the LDC. There is something similar to that about clustering but -- that's under -- the common MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and architectural theme talks about clustering. You go through a conditional use process. We went through a public hearing PUD process, so there was a public hearing process that occurs. don't believe there And I don't believe -- and I could be wrong, Page 53 January 11, 2008 is any requirement for either skewing or rotating the buildings to meet the definition of common architectural theme for clustering. So instead of what you see on the visualizer where you have the buildings angled away from Vanderbilt Road, you could probably line them all up on Vanderbilt Road and really create the wall that you're fearful we'll be creating. Now, I think you have to look at all of this together. We have landscape requirements that we've provided for you. And this is actually the sight line study that shows you, as you're driving down or walking down Vanderbilt Drive, you're not going to see the buildings. So if you're not going to see the buildings, what's the impact on this necessary space between the buildings? Now, from a distance, I don't care where you are, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet, if you're a half a mile away, the buildings are going to look close together, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet. So I think if you look at what we're doing, we are meeting the requirements in the existing PUD; we are further away from Vanderbilt Drive than the minimum required; we have met the skewing and the common architectural theme. We're not asking to change the PUD, we're just asking to make it clear that the minimum distance has to be 100 feet. Because frankly, probably under the PUD we can get even closer, which I believe was one of your concerns when we talked the last time. I believe you asked me, Rich, can't you guys theoretically get within a couple of feet of each building. And we've said no. And we've answered that by saying the towers have got to at least be 100 feet from each other. So we thought we had addressed a lot of the concerns while 1 staying consistent with the existing adopted PUD• maybe, if it down. Because the wayMark,that aA clause really reads is if that if you meet certain conditions it can be 5 J5 Q tt Page 54 January 11, 2008 administratively reviewed. Again, you know my opinion is that the intent of something like that from a planning concept, not from just looking at words and playing Philadelphia lawyer, from a planning concept, that means that if a building rotates, that would tend to close dimensions, and the dimensions would swing in. And if you do that, you won't be penalized because of the fact that you've skewed the building. But let me ask Susan, because she's the one that would be making that judgment. Or Ross might be. Richard, let Ross -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm sony. I thought he was going to sit over there. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, zoning and land dvelopment review. Susan's asked me to address this issue for you. The way we understand the PUD is -- well, the basic question is, is the reduction in setbacks or separation of structures limited by the PUD document? And the answer is no, the separation is unlimited. I can't see'any grounds in there for intent to reduce it a certain amount, or it would have been specified. So the question I ask myself is does the applicant have the right to do what he did? And the answer was yes. There simply is nothing that limits the amount of reduction. , COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Ross, you think what that meant -- here's what I think it meant. I think it meant that if you have two buildings, you have a separation, in this case a square, that if those buildings rotate, they close in on each other a little bit. And that's what that means, that essentially the scale of the project -- remember, I'm talking purely in the planning concept of buildings and mass -- that the scale of the project stays the same but the dimensions do close slightly when you rotate them. So when you're telling me that clause meant -- and this was what was given to the public as a development standard, that if you slightly skew your buildings, which is what they've done, you have no side Page 55 January 11, 2008 setback requirement anymore? MR. GOCHENAUR: Basically that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Really? MR. GOCHENAUR: Correct. Now, as far as the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From a planning concept you really feel -- MR. GOCHENAUR: As far as the intent. When the PUD wasd the approved, I don't think we're going to find anything that exp intent as far as a possible reduction in the amount or the distance. I think it was unlimited. It's unlimited here. I don't see where we have the right to tell the applicant that there's a limit to which he can reduce that separation. It's simply not stated in here's the point. And this e. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But will be the last time. I don't want to be redundant. But I thinkbas planners, not as reading little words and, you know, reading between ee lines, is that when you describe through the table the separationbe these buildings to have essentially a square of space between them, that if you rotate those buildings a little bit, that square can open or close a little bit. You're saying that they essentially tricked us then by giving us a table, giving us a setback, knowing all the time that they're never Mdthey're never going to hit that dimension. . going hit that description, yMR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, I'm not suggesting anyone was tricked. But I am saying that the board approved the setbacks as they appear in this table. And that reading these, without full knowledge of the intent or any real intimate knowledge of the PUD rezone itself, have to say that this is the way I feel constrained to apply it. And don't think Susan disagrees with that, which is why she asked me to explain this to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So as the gwho made the administrative decision that if a building in this case was slightly skewed, that eliminated the requirement for building separation? Page 56 January 11, 2008 MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, that's my understanding of this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At our last meeting we discussed this particular point in depth. I believe almost everybody weighed in at different points, we spent a lot of time on it. What I had said is I'm not happy about it, I don't like it, but it's in the PUD. We're not here to change the PUD, nor can we. I just think it's something we have to live with and move on. And I believe it was the consensus of most of us, as I said, that it is the way it and we have to live with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a comment and then I've got a comment. Ms. Caron, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and it will be a comment at this point -- well, actually, I'll ask a question first to the county attorney. Do you agree that staff has no authority to make a judgment on the separation of these buildings? MR. KLATZKOW: I think -- just for visually, because I'm more of a visual person, if your buildings were like this and you required 200 feet, okay, and then they said you can make it slightly askew and thereby build them like this, I think that's an absurd interpretation. I think what the -- I think the way it reads is that there's discretion here -- and that includes this board as well because you're making recommendations to the board here, that if they're going to make this slightly skewed, that yes, they can reduce this, that's appropriate. The Question is how much of a reduction is appropriate4 And that's my view on that. Now, the planning director disagrees with that, and that's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you for that. Because Page 57 January 11, 2008 I think this is a critically important discussion to be having because this is not going to affect just this project. This will affect projects coming down the road. And if we suddenly decide that we have no authority -- no planning authority to decide whether 250 -- what in realitywill be 251-foot plus buildings could essentially be five feet apart, the absurdity of that judgment is just beyond me. . If this board thinks that 100 feet, when it should be 200 feet, is the correct way to go, then you'll make that decision. But I agree with Mr. Schiffer, that we're going to end up with essentially a wall of buildings 100 -- you know, barely 100 feet apart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had a comment I wanted to make. And I saw this sentence telling us that the applicant had agreed that the buildings would never be less than 100 feet apart. I don't know why the applicant wanted to do that, because basically the PUD stands on itself and they probably have a very good case on that footnote if they y wanted to make one, regardless. So I'm wondering, to get off this point, because we're only discussing it because of these two sentences in the PUD that now with staffs testimony here today and the clarifications that have come out of discussion today by staff, why do you need these two sentences? You still got the PUD that dominates, and we're off the discussion and we go on to the rest of the paragraphs. So I'm asking the applicant, originally I saw a version of this document with those two sentences struck, because apparently someone at one time felt the PUD stood on its own. I understand your position in trying to voluntarily minimize the distance in which they could be put at, but it looks like that's causing a lot more controversy than the effort may have been worth. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will tell you, we think the benefit of that sentence is both to us and to the county so when there's personnel changes over time, there always are, or different people sitting in your seats, people could interpret the document differently. And we would Page 58 January 11, 2008 like that certainty because, candidly, we need to know that this site development plan will be approved, or something similar to it if changes happen will be approved in the future and not be subject to a debate over words_in the future. And we thought -- I think staff would prefer to have the clarification so we all know it won't be less than 100 feet. We would like that in the document to provide certainty to us so -- and reasonable minds can disagree about what things mean, and we're just trying to make sure that this is clear that we have certainty in the future. And that's why we've asked to keep that in. I know it's an uncomfortable conversation we're having, but that's why it's in, and we think that it's beneficial to both sides to have that language in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the language only states a minimum. To get to that minimum, you still need to bringin the common architectural theme issue. So the language doesn't t clear up any of the debate about that issue. It simply says you have a minimum of 100 feet that you can get to but you still got to fall back on what the debate has been to get there. So I'm not sure why the sentence helps you, but if you want to leave it in, then we will go forward. I just suggested, since I had seen it struck in the prior version, the first version that was sent to this committee back last year didn't have -- had that struck through as being omitted. Then it was put back in when you all realized it was coming to us, for some reason. But that's fine. It seemed simpler without it. We're on paragraph 10 -- Brad, did you have another question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My comment was, based on Ross's testimony,just take it out. Because we're ultimately going to vote on this thing. I certainly could -- I don't know how we're going to vote, if we vote by number, line item veto kind of thing maybe. But if we vote on this thing as a whole, I would never support that. . Page 59 January 11, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN:,I don't think we're voting on it. I think we're simply making recommendations and we can all, on each recommendation, say we support it or don't support it. We're here to tell -- I thought we were here to describe to the. BCC what the settlement agreement means in interpretation of the -PT3D that they formerly had, the differences. If some of us see this as a different interpretation than what the PUD meant, then that could be our recommendation. Others of us may not see that as a different interpretation. You're focusing on your dislike of a footnote in the PUD, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's a different interpretation. That's all I'm getting at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Make it clear, I'm focusing on, the geometry of the construction of this project. Let me ask Ross one quick question before we jump away. Ross, this is in for SDP, the setbacks are shown. I saw some correspondence where you didn't accept the setbacks because the buildings were parallel but then they slightly skewed them and Therefore triggering that footnote. And you've given us your interpretation of that. Have you signed off on the setbacks of this SDP already? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. They're revising the setbacks not for the high-rises but principally for the clubhouse and the single-family homes. For the high-rises, I've accee ted the resubmittal that revise the setbacks and skewed the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially Richard is concerned about the future generations, you've signed it off, it's a done deal. This clause doesn't mean anything in this agreement anyway, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW:, Let's keep in mind that this is almost like a packe. The settlement agreement and the site development plan are Page 60 January 11, 2008 all going to the board at the same time.. " nd, you know, defining what the setback is in the settlement agreement doesn't -- I don't know really where it gets us anyway, since the site development plan is going to have the setbacks anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the applicant wants to leave it in. We can recommend to take the two sentences out and that can be done with it, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The,concern is not about the present `But if we go in_the future and we determine that we need to make a modification to the site development plan and we move the buildings a foot one way or the other, we don't want to get into a debate again on this issue. We want it to be understood and clear that we can go ahead and reduce the setbacks between the buildings. We don't want -- we don't want to be stuck with, Mr. Yovanovich, you moved it a foot. We think this new group doesn't agree that you're allowed to put buildings closer together. That's why this provision is in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR.. KLATZKOW: Then I'm going to want some clarity. Because my understanding was that we were going to have a final site development plan and that's how this development was going to get built. I'm hearing now that well, maybe we're going to make changes after all this is over to that site development plan. So that what ultimately gets built is not what ultimately is going to go before this board. And I don't -- it's okay by me if it's okay with this board, but that's what we're saying here right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that this settlement agreement is based upon the Approval of the three SDP& Once they're approved, they're done. Are you ging to tell us that there's going to be more_-- well, they'd be outside the settlement�agreement, would they not? H._ MR. YOVANOVICH: They would-be outside the settlement agreement. What we're looking for is clarification of what does the Page 61 January 11, 2008 PUD document mean in this settlement agreement. So if there is a change, people will say, Mr. Yovanovich, you're right, the buildings can be, as long as they meet the common architectural theme. The buildings are not parallel, they are skewed, you can be closer together but not less than 100 feet apart on the residential tower and the parking garages, some of the building height. So when we go in the future, we know we're allowed to do that. No maze, no language of, you know, what is this distance of, you know, what is -- how much skewing do you need to do to meet the intent of this. We want to know that if there is a change, that's how the PUD document will be interpreted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I myself, I thought the PUD language stood on its own. Your bringing it into this document is causing concerns with this panel. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm listening to the public discussion about it and there are people who are less certain that it stands on its own and it's clear. And that's why we're trying to make it clear through the settlement agreement, so in the future we don't have a changing of minds as to what is clear in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments on paragraph 10? If not, we have to figure out how to resolve this paragraph and what kind of recommendation as far as the language goes we need to provide to the county attorney to include in the next draft that is produced. Any comments from the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, what I would prefer we do is remove this language, because -- and let it be something that the administrative staff take care of. If Richard is concerned about a future planner viewing it the way I would view it -- and remember, I have a degree in architecture and planning -- then that's a good concern. Page 62 January 11, 2008 But the point is I would never want it to look like this board endorsed this kind of interpretation of the setback. I don't think it's right,-and I think it should just be struck. '__ - It should not be a problem. Quick, get your administrative stuff in there. And Ross is today's professional and he says that you can do what you want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tend to agree with you in the sense that I don't think the PUD needs any more clarification. I think you can manage yourself under the PUD. That's what you accepted. I don't see the need for these two sentences. I'd just as soon they were gone as well. I just don't see the need for them. I understand your concern, Richard, but you're a capable attorney and I'm sure you could argue whatever rights you had aren't, going to go away whether these two sentences are there or not. Any other comments from anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to say one more thing. Is that when we get PUDs we get a development standard table, which everybody says that's the genetic code of the project. And then we get a drawing that everybody says can be fluctuated quite a bit. The standard really gave everybody the impression of the separation of these buildings. To do what we're doing now I think is a big mistake, the way it's being interpreted. Enough said. I mean, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, when I read a development standards table, and you know I read them all because every single meeting I harp on the footnotes. I read this one. I wasn't here when that one was approved, that was way before my time. But had it been here, I would have known what it meant, I would have known exactly what it meant and what the footnotes mean, because I realize they're critical, they're that important to what this committee approves. So I don't know if when this went through people didn't know what they mean or didn't read it. I sure would have known what it Page 63 January 11, 2008 meant and would have read it, so I'm assuming the other bodies on this board would have done the same thing. So I'm not in your camp in that regard, but I do believe that these two sentences are not needed, and my recommendation would be that they just be struck and not included as part of this settlement agreement. Is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I really agree with that. Do you need a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we need a motion, Mr. Klatzkow, or just consensus? MR. KLATZKOW: At the end I'm going to ask you to go through this so we have certainty as to what these changes are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let's just get a consensus. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, don't you feel that the Board of County Commissioners wanted our opinion on such a thing on whether it's a reasonable distance between structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wanted our opinion on how the settlement agreement differed than the PUD, how it changed the effect of the PUD. That's what they specifically said on the tape that we reviewed. If they wanted our opinion on all the aspects of this project, we could do that. But we would need about a month at the rate we're going and every day of the week to review it. I don't think they wanted theythat if we sent it to them. focus. nor would be able to read So we need to stick to the Look at the settlement agreement, look at the issues in the settlement agreement and describe to the BCC how they vary from the PUD language that's already been approved or suggest remedies to that effect. And that's what I think we need to be focusing on. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But shouldn't we see what the consensus is as far as this_board is concerned relative to the separation somewhere along the line, whether i't's now or done at the end of the Page 64 January 11, 2008 hearings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think this is a popularity vote on the PUD's application. If it is, then that's -- we can do that, but I'm not going to take part in it because I don't think that was part of the direction this board was given. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I wasn't talking about a popularity report, I was talking about something that's whether ifs good planning or bad planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that differs too amongst the people and the experience they have on this board -- or experience in that field. And I'm not sure everybody has the expertise to opine on what's good and bad planning from a perspective we'd be looking at this. Because we certainly haven't gone in, analyzed the PUD in regards to the presentations at the time and weighed in on the way this is utilized in other parts of either this county or the parts of Florida. So those are areas I don't see where this board had the --needs to get into. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Frankly, I prefer the language out. The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going ask for a -- I'm going to go down the line as far as recommending removal of this language. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself, yes. Page 65 January 11, 2008 Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yew CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will be the recommendation on paragraph 10. We now can move on to paragraph 11. Paragraph 11 didn't have any -- had a small change, and changed the word shall to may. Although I think there's a couple of changes in the last sentence that we just evolved out of the discussion we had on single-family where says 1,200 square feet, it says each single-family dwelling unitshall be set back a minimum of 200 feet from the north and east boundaries.f That should read, all structures shall be set back a minimum 200 feet from all boundaries of the PUD project. MR. YOVANOVICH: And maybe it could even be simpler, is that I believe we provided you a development standards table for the single-family homes. Perhaps we could just refer to it as an exhibit instead of-- we would just say the single-family standards shall be as depicted in exhibit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, because we're not dealing with the issue of just single-family in regards to that portion of the sentence. We're dealing with setbacks from all PUD boundaries to be 200 feet. Which goes back to your fence discussion that we went in length and you got a comfort level that a fence was not an accessory structure. Basically, what we'd be saying is all structures would have to have at least a 200-foot setback from PUD boundaries, not just single-family as you're suggesting now in a single-family developments standards table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. Page 66 DIMENSIONS OF KALEA BAY TOWERS Paragraph 2 in the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement states, "This agreement and release expressly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control." Details of how the PUD would be developed were in 3 SDP's. In 2007, the Commissioners directed the Planning Commission to review the proposed Settlement Agreement in context of the PUD as well as the existing Land Development Code regulations. Details of discussions the Planning Commission had with Rich Yovanovich regarding all aspects of the PUD can be read in a transcript of their January 11 , 2008 Planning Commission meeting. WIDTH of TOWERS: There is no mention of width of towers in the Settlement Agreement. On original SDP the tower width is listed at 260'. Actual width of Tower 1 is 310' If each of the 5 towers is 50' wider than the 260' listed in the SDP, fifty times fives equates to almost an additional tower on site. HEIGHT of TOWERS: See AMENDED COCOHATCHEE BAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "R" DISTRICT TABLE II (in Settlement Agreement). In the Settlement Agreement, it states that the maximum height of towers is 200' of habitable space. Tower 1 exceeds 200 ft. in height because it has 2 levels of garage at its base and a pool and fitness center on the roof. It should be noted that "habitable space" actually begins on the upper level of the garage where the building manager's home is located. Since it contains a bathroom and kitchen, that is habitable space. SDPA PL20160002242 currently under review by County staff sho highest point of Buildings 2-4 will be 224' 11 " with the u er ws the ceiling being 199' 0"just under the 200' maximum. pp most finished Paragraph 10 in the Settlement Agreement states, "Building Five as shown on the Revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B on the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in Building Height, as defined in Paragraph 3.5 entitled "Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the amended PUD, and Footnote 2 thereto. SDPA PL20160002242 currently under review by County staff shows the highest point of Building 5 will be 301 ' 1 �/a" with the uppermost finished ceiling height 276' 2 IA" which would CLEARLY be a violation of the Settlement Agreement. HOWEVER, Brad Schiffer (former Collier Planning Commissioner and current head architect for the state of Florida) explained to me that on this chart I have to focus on the bottom of the chart where they show the elevation of the 3rd story floor (1st habitable level) to be at 100' instead of 0' as it did in the diagram for Buildings 2-4. So, that makes the uppermost finished ceiling of Building 5 to be 176 2 %" -still more than the 175' maximum, but not by much. . DISTANCE BETWEEN TOWERS: PUD Section 3.5 Table II located on page OR 4368 Pages 2415-16 "BH (Building Height) Building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure." "SBH (Sum of Building Height) Combined Height of two adjacent buildings for the purpose of determining setback requirements." The setback formula in the chart is 0.5 SBH *Footnote 3 So if Tower 1 is 200' tall and Tower 2 is 200' tall, the sum is 400' and half of that would be 200'—the setback requirement or distance between buildings. *Footnote 3 below 3.5 Table II states, "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed, or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." When I pointed out to County staff that the Towers appeared to be much closer together than allowed, Christ Scott replied to me, "Setbacks are based on the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD Section 3.5 Table II. Per the approved PUD, the minimum separation between structures is half the building height; however, buildings with common architectural theme that are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks an be administratively reduced. The SDPA under review shows buildings with a separation of at least 700' measured from the towers and 72' measured between parking structures. " When we pointed out to County staff that the above was an error in how to calculate the setback requirement, Christ Scott responded that his answer to me had been a "typo". . . In the transcript of the Planning Commissioners meeting on January 11 , 2008, a lengthy discussion of this issue of inadequate setbacks begins on page 46 and continues through page 66. On pages 65-66 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to not allow language in the Settlement Agreement stating that the setbacks between buildings would be a minimum of 100' and County attorney, Jeff Klatzkow, stated, "The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time." County staff is saying that they are allowed to make an "administrative reduction" to the distance between buildings because of *Footnote 3 quoted above. I have written to County staff that I could understand an "administrative reduction" of 6" or 6' or even 16'; however, sliding the buildings to within a hundred feet in the back and 72' in the front when the required distance between buildings is supposed to be 200' is unacceptable. We do not think it is in the public's interest to allow 5 buildings which are 310' wide to be only 100' apart at one point and 72' apart at another point. This will equate to a tall wall of concrete obstructing our view in perpetuity. We want to bring this to the attention of Collier County Commissioners NOW, before County staff gives Towers 2-5 approval to be built as proposed in SDPA PL20160002242. I question if County staff has been properly reviewing the SDP and the Settlement Agreement before they approve deviations requested by developer. . ' ;' 11.;1 14' , *It ' .''' ' it' :.-.,...zi.:ity,-.1.!,..;:ti..,,,f1 . :,.. - it.::::,,,,i_.,t-7,--..--:,....,:,k„,,,,_..v. ,,,,, . i . , 1. !. ; ' ',47- - ...i i -?'-..-.=':',:' ';',7',::.:i--.,.''',4,-- d''''*.'' ' I'.;At--''.. -':.;* - ''''' . ''' v) -,, , ....r t,..'''''1--Q u cc ltd i= 'tit 1R\ i\ i o q ,--0 Li=CY "tr ' 's.- ''. VII ''.° .-O' ', ,f,/ 4. t . c..,1 i. '° . ,:',*Y , IPS 11111111, ,, ' _ .:44 , , r -4 N s � � . ...„. .... .... 1. ,t: ,._ * x ' , gl t, ..„..„ _-.:,,.. . -..., 2... . _,,, ., , _ t mac+ r. c 1 "s L.. V i F t ij� .:! / ta .. t#1.. . ,_,,, lh, ,. ' /* oil .- i #: . ;;,-,..._,,,,..-7 of . . f �\ � � ( , , w c ..-. # Q z sLL„ yoro) , c:, .,4 CI) C Z '{ + z = $ fi t 1.: ti 7 p yY' C °v moi. s 1 l ( l yam# X iit ib . , - ,,..-,ii,-.:,"4.-.. � fy .;1. i{ k 6 till' ,tti e y Retn: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 RBC FEE 926.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD RECORDED in the OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COMITY, FL COPIES 97.00 IEBROFFICE 4TH FLOOR 06/10/2008 at 10:46AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK BI? 7240 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this day of , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC ("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle Management Plan, and WHEREAS, the PUD in question is also sometimes;referred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD; and - ,, WHEREAS, Lodge filed a petition for certiorari snit ie Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida to attack-the County's-,decistons concerning the proposed amendment to the PUD's Bald-Eagle Management Plan, that case being styled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier County,Case.No...05-967-CA;and WHEREAS, on or around May 1, 2006, Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act ("Bert Harris Act"), Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4)(c) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. 1 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2346 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and Release, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound, Lodge and the County mutually agree to the following: 1. The County and Lodge agree to adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as"Whereas clauses"by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. The settlement documents will consist of the original PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 (Exhibit 1), the amended PUD (Exhibit 2), the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan for the amended PUD (attached as Exhibit "B" to the amended PUD), a phasing diagram entitled "Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Exhibit".(=Exh bit:-3), and, a Pathway Depiction (Exhibit 4). This Agreement and Release;,expressly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD: Absent an-express-term in this Agreement and Release, the ‘,77 original PUD will control. I( t a s :% fi 3. The settlenne t shall three` site development plans ("SDPs") that Lodge has submitted being approved by the County, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Couys llnt -awe ,as...the development standards set forth in the original PUD and as may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282, AR5283 and AR5284. 4. The County will expedite the review of these three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. The existing environmental impact statement ("EIS") does not need to be amended unless the SDPs are revised to increase wetland impact beyond the impact currently permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five(5%)percent. 5. Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential 2 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: Z34•1 condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable workforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment. 6. Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, Lodge shall contribute the sum of$3 million to the County to fund Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements. No impact fee credits shall be given for payment of this sum. Lodge recognizes that the County may request additional contributions up to the proposed road impact fees due for 590 dRcelhng:units to assist the County in funding the construction of the Vanderbilt Drive Bridgeenhancements.LNo such additional contributions shall be required, however,until the_County--provides evidence that all parties have spent Jo - $5,500,000.00 on the Vanderbilt L r veBndge erd ancemenns Any such sums paid over the initial $3 million shall recetve'road impact fee credits: Nothing in this Agreement and Release, however, is intended ito'-nor shall it restrict m anyway the County's ability under applicable laws, ordinances or rules td require fifty percent(50%) of all transportation impact fees upon approval of the SDPs. These funds shall be refunded to Lodge should Lodge be permanently prevented from commencing construction based upon actions by any governmental entity or any third party. County shall be entitled to retain these funds without any need for reimbursement upon the earlier of(1) Lodge's commencement of construction of the first tower, or (2) the exhaustion of time to file any third party challenge with respect to any matter concerned by this Agreement and the attachments hereto. 7. Lodge and the County agree that the Cocohatchee Bay PUD shall be exempted from the County's PUD sunsetting provisions within the LDC until the Effective J 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth (1/5) of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or golf course use-is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reason, then all of the GC'Barcel including wrthgct .limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those,.portions-allowed.,for the two (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be limited?iri perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the amended PUD Preserve Parcel:----Any revisions to these restrictive covenants will require a supermajority vote of the Board of County Commissioners. 9. To fully satisfy itsobligations_to__construet-sidewalks along adjacent off-site public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway-ten (1O) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006) in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2349 (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in Building Height, as defined in Paragraph 3.5 entitled "Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the amended PUD, and Footnote 2 thereto. 11. The maximum number of dwelling units to be constructed by Lodge shall not exceed 590 units. Of these, a maximum of 590 units may be multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However, two (2) units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as set forth in Section 4.4 in the amended PUD, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 12. What has been referred to as4he R-2 Parcels shall be replaced by a single R parcel as set forth in the revised PUD MasterPlan sattached to the amended PUD. The development standards for the R Parcel-are-as-set forth in Table II of Paragraph 3.5 of the amended PUD (except as maybe expressly modified by the Agreement and Release). 13. If there are additional changes to-the e Bald-Eagle,-Management Plan required by federal or state agencies, no further County PUD amendment process shall be required. The County acknowledges that the Amended.Bald-Eagle Management Plan is in compliance with the County regulations. Lodge shall be exempt from any County regulations that may be adopted in the future applicable to the Bald Eagle and the County shall defer to the state and federal regulatory permitting process relating to the Bald Eagle Management Plan and issues related thereto. Lodge, however, shall be required to notify the County of any such changes required by state or federal agencies, which will then require an administrative change by the County to any of the previously approved SDPs under review or that have been approved by the County. Any change to the construction sequencing shall be considered an insubstantial change to the SDP. 14. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit 2. 5 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2350 15. Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees, insurers, sureties, agents, attorneys, and representatives of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord. No. 2000-88, the related Bald Eagle Management Plan or any amendment or proposed amendment to the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 or the Bald Eagle Management Plan through the date this Agreement and Release are approved and authorized by the Board for the Chairman's signature including without limitation all Bert Hams Act claims and the claim asserted in Case No. 05-967-CA - This release shall be immediately effective upon the County's approval of the 3 SDPs in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement and Release. 16. In the event of,a third party challenge to-this Agreement and Release, the County and Lodge agree to work cooperatively to defend this Agreement and Release. In this regard, the County and Lodge shall each seek to become parties to any such challenge proceeding if one or the other of them is not named as a party in the first instance. The County and Lodge shall each bear their own costs and attorney's fees in any such proceeding. 17. If any third party challenge to this Agreement and Release should ever be successful, after exhaustion of all appeals or other requests for review or reconsideration or federal permit conditions prevent Lodge from being able to develop the project consistent with the amended PUD Master Plan then the County agrees to return all money provided by Lodge under this Agreement and Release upon sixty(60)days written notice from Lodge and to allow Lodge to retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. In addition, if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain 6 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2351 required federal permits for the SDPs as referenced in this document and is therefore unable to build this project (exclusive of any federal permits or approvals for docks), Lodge likewise will be entitled to a refund of all money provided under this Agreement and Release within sixty (60) days of written notice from Lodge and Lodge shall retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. 18. Nothing in this Agreement and Release or the settlement documents shall be construed or interpreted to confer any right to docks or any particular number of docks. 19. The Agreement and Release shall be binding upon Lodge's and the County's predecessors, successors, assigns, officers,;present-and former employees, owners, present and former elected or appointed officials, insurers, principals,and representatives, who shall work together in good faith to accomplish the intent of this Agreement and Release. 20. This Agreement and Release shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. 21. This Agreement-and Release may be:amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement_and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release. This Agreement"and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. 22. The County and Lodge acknowledge that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision that my exist in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party either based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous language or that the language in question was intended to favor one party or the other. 7 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2352 23. The Effective Date of this Agreement and Release shall be the date upon which the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, executes this document. 24. The County and Lodge acknowledge and assume the risk that additional, different or contrary facts to the facts which they believe exist may now exist or may be discovered after this Agreement and Release has been entered into, and they agree that any such additional, different or contrary facts shall in no way limit, waive, affect or alter this Agreement and Release. The County affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the,prq}ec as-authorized by the PUD and this Agreement and Release or the enforceability of ii Agreement and Release. Lodge affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that, would prohibit the.construction of the project as '" authorized by the PUD and 'this Agreerhent t and�elease or the enforceability of this t, Agreement and Release. ; 25. In the event of a .breach of this Agreement and,Release, either party to this Agreement and Release may enforce its terms in-the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In this respect, theCounty and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REMAINING SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 8 2/28/08 revision - 011: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST:;;; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT EBROCK, CLERK COLLIER CO TY, F ORIDA c. 4 / ` • By: rot /1/ ' �L BY: _ 11 villillibbak A : nu. Mai. , P-puty lerk TOM HENNING, CHAIRM signature on r4. . - WIT I S ES; / 1 / . , i Signed Name 491 Cdtivto›.6 7- 4e0e.gri:ick Print-• Name 4_,A,01. 6.elie ,..„..„.,. . . 1 / �./ Si��1• Name = LODGE-; BOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC 4, 7,0zig,..:>1,- BY. _ 4,0 '1,1, JJLG21Q/lg B ' ITS: p(AANi /7-'Tr Printed Name i_a•' '-'-';'''''--7.','-''",.,6,777 ;,. Ap• oved as to form it { j ` i i i ' '' and e! • II __ • _., ;` a 3`- t l 1 ; ; _�: y', ,.s r .., ` _,ate ,�: iniarz.. • Je ' A. K1 AT ow , � '...�F , ' i Co . y Atto 1 j-y _ �A+--,Z. V k / 9 2/28/08 revision Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Updates On June 17, 201 5, Lodge Abbott extended his 2004 golf course permit and clear cut two large sections of land in the fall. I called Matt McLean's office in September and November and asked that the site be inspected for any violations of the permit. Both times his office responded that all clearing was allowed by the permit. On April 16, 2016 I sent an email to County Commissioners, county attorney, county manager, county planning commissioners, Daryl Hughes and Matt McClean informing them that the golf course permit that the developer extended was a sham. There is no mention of a golf course in the amenities section of the Kalea Bay website and a Kalea Bay sales agent told me three times that they had no plans to build a golf course. In 2016 nearly the whole interior of the Golf Course parcel was cleared under the guise of building a Golf Course. It defies logic that the developer is truly building a golf course. . What savvy developer would build a new golf course in Collier County when many golf courses are struggling to make a profit? What developer wanting to sell $1 .5 million condos would not feature photos and information about the golf course he's building right across the road in the amenities section of his website. What developer building a golf course would instruct his sales agents to tell potential buyers that he isn't building a golf course? What developer building condo towers AND a golf course across the road would not be selling golf course memberships? The most recent golf course plans submitted to the County show 18 holes of golf crammed on the GC parcel. The plan does NOT show an entrance, clubhouse, parking lot, golf cart barn, driving range or practice green. In fact, the plan shows a driving range and practice green on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive where a maintenance building, guest suites and tennis courts are already built. We can't put back the centuries old cypress trees that have been cut down or restore the wetlands, but we can insist that the use of the land be limited to golf course or leave it alone to grow back. Several Collier County golf courses not able to make a profit requested that they be allowed to change their zoning to residential. County Commissioners put a moratorium on those requests on April 12, 2016. County staff were directed to draft an amendment to facilitate golf course conversion to other uses. Right now the language of that amendment is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. We theorize the developer is going ahead and clearing the land getting it ready for residential development so that when the new LDC amendment is in place, he will use it to change zoning from golf course to residential. We ask that the Golf Course Conversion Amendment apply only to golf courses that were fully constructed and in business prior to April 12, 2016. We also ask County Commissioners and staff to enforce terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement. Please refer to "Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement Analysis" to view specific concerns. The intent of the Settlement Agreement can be clarified by reading the transcript of the December 12, 2006 meeting among County Commissioners, Rich Yovanovich, concerned citizens and the developer. Please read pages 46--66 of the January 11 , 2008 Planning Commissioners meeting to clarify the issues brought to the county in the letter from our attorney, Ralf Brookes. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 fit « . « • ` • - • ` • • rr rr ! •• • \ rr• r .- at « wb• t• • , r r.-T-• i • • « • r . 4. e •• i 4* 4..,..!,•.• '•.•.• .1001) . . •••- -.1... ,• .. .•...•,..s , . �y -i, nn . ..\.4.4 Ili e i i r *,..;:f. . ri.,1 i 19, R ls' i b .40 L. _ _____ _ _.......i.........-01, _ _ 111616--—mi.- r.s YLT DI�VF (S.R. S-88SA)- v __ _-_ 0 --=�i___-----____ _0 �r-wArr .— --mss. _-.r--ser-�S-- sr-i, - —�:= .. iiii C1-- sr. _, . .4::., , _ _ 0 (ii : .._A4 ,:::: ,_____ ...._•••___. •• 1, ,,. .N..... _ • sii.,1,14. . ...-1"q-- ' ,4:1 1(,. '°\-1 ‘1 , qMTMW:::: le10-''''... :‘, I i • • . 1 ' (0 1, \ 0 z;;;A‘: 0 zn:;;;;;;;; .\ .*.•.*.*.*.•.*„ '•,...,,„,....4 , * \,,t Pi II 1 , , ...... . ,. . . i;.!a• I ' i 414 S.,:ii:i. Or:•.•.• .r •tilb, r r • \ 7 1 tar i * 1 \ I \ : ; • 1r : lA I , '. ‘..'!'' 'FZ1111041r4--44"kt, .g... \ _ -- 4 « 4 t • 1 NI n 2ianZ Rg �^'' ni_ H II n. o 3la � � Al ;mO!131 xl fip z ; y ii++ 0 , f) AO ... 1 i #} '*•41-14 r' I U\'''k . A . i g a , 1: , , 4. . . , .11 , ._ , _ .. . A. ---___ .k ..t"...,. r.. ° ' i ' , t i --4 I ",,,c crt") (k .. I ti • , , , ,...., , .. 2. I ) -'' II 1 S4 x. i {C„. gr _ , b� kyri ,, ( 'N �. ti �� ! 3 '^: i - lit , A •. .,.c. o` , l s s 4a •! r r .MY w`k l.”s.a. -fr. .��,r:..+n..++ate"Y�.w.11......- -.+`'}�� Y✓ Y _ ]w1 11111 Iici 'iy - 1!R ii 111 III' 'al t I A fi li ki iJi ..* . *.., , s3111J il 3. Al's Iii . ir %A4 a i s i ii sil 1 11 'it . it li !.. i' 1,1 * f iltlil ii r0P ', it .l # ct ti 1.4. li t , s 11, ,1' tf /'4 1 411'IA 1111: I ii iI!IiIi i Iii .• ,.� - a . i 4•# 4R:•t • • pyx„ Y . •#e ,, xtR""-0 't •i,"e.`s 3 '".rep,, • i t p 4 t !!•! �444 `++. \\:''4y y Ck . 4 • •4 t' y *'tom & s 'Q f '��h '! . • • • f .8 • t...4 r,0.41t t `ttn t Rct.e , 4 t 4 • 3 x4 kA. #' . 4,* atI I 4 4 �4 t . 1 e , itt \`v • r 44 • -'fig .^- �-- "- _ I Y r' 4 t #r# y mak• :" .. �, 1 ow..�.— .a c ,v *A***''.... :` ....► 'ate_ ......x....r e..*�..---- p E t E _ `' •r* _..M*. Yw #4W a1,.444•w 4't .-.+• I. t 1- L."*L44,1 L'''''' —417.'1 w ,, .. qy...t.. - 't .•, xrwK .- 3, y,� t ; y i! j0004!'-,j'.4.**,-:11,r"."!- 4:1'4 * T-',-','",*...!*''''' :','*''''''''''''--' '' 7 c."-,':, p 4 t t. " 4 &*7. d" _f . ''''') ""**** ' 41.-i ' i **(..... *' 11 + s1, P,. #•a# 4 • s • s `x. x a 1 ii - 2 *� r 4V • ••••# # • a *• rt*4 •# • • • 4 r #4 4 } ; het *a * #t� # 4 4 $ '* • *4 t 4 Y 4.4 C p ,, i 4 t•, s • •44 y " .• , T 4 IY • 4' s • • 4 ` ice• n .. ,...- • {#a *4#1 #• Rte .•> #,#° k !. 3 444 • • # # * ! 4 *, ♦ �1 t• • # 2,4 • wa 4 4 • • •a • ••• • _ • • • • 4 • COCOHATCHEE BAY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ANALYSIS Paragraph 2 states ". . .This Agreement and Release expressly states the acceptable deviation in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control. So how did the width of the Towers get changed from 260' to 310'? Paragraph 4 states that the County will expedite the review of three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. Those SDP's gave detailed descriptions of the buildings at Kalea Bay so that County staff, Commissioners and neighbors who are stakeholders in the final result could envision what the development would look like. Does that mean it is okay to slide Tower 1 one-third closer to Aqua—from 166' to 106'? Does that mean it's okay to build the towers 310' wide instead of 260' wide? Does that mean it is okay to put a manager's home on the upper garage level and then not identify that as a habitable floor? Does that mean it's okay to put just 100' between the towers when the intention of Footnote 3 was absurdly interpreted by one County staff person? Read pp 46-66 of transcript of January 11 , 2008 Planning Commissioners' meeting. Paragraph 8 states that as each condo building receives its certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth of the GC Parcel. We want the County to make sure that happens. It also says that if the Golf Course is abandoned for any reason, the GC parcel will be green open space in perpetuity. Is it okay that the developer extended a 2004 Golf Course permit and cleared nearly the entire parcel under the guise of building a Golf Course when that defies logic? What savvy developer would build a new golf course in Collier County when many golf courses are struggling to make a profit? What developer wanting to sell $1 .5 million condos would not include information about the golf course he's building right across the road in the amenities section of his website where the word "golf" is not mentioned? What developer building a golf course would instruct his sales agents to tell potential buyers that he isn't building a golf course? What developer building condo towers AND a golf course across the road would not be selling golf course memberships? The most recent golf course plans submitted to the County show 18 holes of golf crammed on the GC parcel. The plan does NOT show an entrance, clubhouse, parking lot, golf cart barn, driving range or practice green. In fact, the plan shows a driving range and practice green on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive where a maintenance building, guest suites and tennis courts are already built. Paragraph 9 states that Lodge is supposed to construct a 10' pathway on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive when he receives the Tower 1 certificate of occupancy. We want the County to make sure that happens. Paragraph 11 states the maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 590. At a meeting with Commissioners on December 12, 2006 the developer's attorney, Rich Yovanovich was trying to get Commissioners to approve the Settlement Agreement and assured them that the applicant would not be back at a later date asking to put residences on the Golf Course. Lodge has tried twice to get housing project approved by the County. Paragraph 15 states that Lodge released, waived and forever discharged the County and its present, former and future officials and employees from any legal action related directly or indirectly to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. However, in the spring of 2015 he threatened to sue the County in an 8 page letter sent to the County attorney. Then in a $4,000 full-page open letter in the Naples Daily News, he declared that he had decided to NOT sue the County because he wanted to be a good neighbor. Paragraph 19 states that the Settlement Agreement shall be binding on Lodge's and the County's present, former and future employees who shall work together in good faith to accomplish the intent of the Settlement Agreement. The true intent of the terms of the Settlement Agreement can be learned by reading the transcripts of meetings among Planning Commissioners and Rich Yovanovich and the County Commissioners and Rich Yovanovich in 2006 and 2007. Paragraph 21 states that the Settlement Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to it and executed with the "same formalities" of the Settlement Agreement. So, was it right when the Hearing Examiner was allowed to absolve Lodge from Item 5 on the Settlement Agreement which stated that Lodge would contribute $3 million to affordable housing? Paragraph 24 states that the County and Lodge assume the risk that additional, different or contrary facts which they believed at that time, might be discovered after the Settlement Agreement has been signed. They agreed that additional facts shall in no way affect or alter the agreement. Since the time the Settlement Agreement was signed the popularity and profitability of golf has declined. That fact in no way should alter the terms of Item #8 which states that if the golf course is ever abandoned for any reason, the land adjacent to us will remain green open space in perpetuity. We feel that Lodge has cleared the GC parcel in preparation for building residences there. Currently the Planning Commission is reviewing language in a Golf Course Conversion amendment. On April 12,2016, the Board of County Commissioners put a moratorium on golf courses requesting to convert to residential zoning until this issue could be studied. It is anticipated that the Golf Course Conversion document will be ready for the Commissioners to review in April of 2017. Nowhere in that conversion document does it state that the amendment will apply only to golf courses that were fully constructed and in business prior to April 12, 2016. We fear that the developer will use the Golf Course Conversion amendment to facilitate the rezoning of the GC parcel to residential. Paragraph 25 states that "In the event of a breach of the Settlement Agreement, either party may enforce its terms in the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In this respect the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary." The Bert Harris Statute 70 requires that both parties record the Settlement Agreement with the Court so the Court can preserve the public interest; however, Case No. 05-967-CA is still pending . . . Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Cod bier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239) 252-6358 Appeal of an Administrative Type III Decision LDC section 10.04.04 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED The following applications are subject to an administrative Type III review: variances, administrative appeals, certificates of appropriateness, conditional uses, nonconforming use amendments, vested rights, flood variances, and parking agreements. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Owner: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: Name of Agent: Firm: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: REQUEST DETAIL Appeal of Application Number: AR/PL- (Please reference the application number that is being appealed) Attach a narrative describing the request, the legal basis for the appeal, and the relief sought. Include any pertinent information, exhibits, and other backup information in support of the appeal. 12/26/2013 Page 1 of 2 Coe r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239) 252-6358 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The following items are to be submitted with the completed application packet: ❑ Completed application (download current form from County website) ❑ Completed narrative ❑ Electronic copy of all documents, please advise that the Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. FEE REQUIREMENTS: ❑ Appeal of Vested Rights Determination: $100.00 ❑ Appeal of an Administrative Decision:$1,000.00 ❑ Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner:$925.00 All checks payable to:Board of County Commissioners The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 12/26/2013 Page 2 of 2 Building Separation LDC Separation Distance Based on Height. BH m - _ — I Minimum Distance Between Buildings LDC Table 2. Building Dimensions Standards BH=Building Height ( BH + BH ) * 0.5 = BH -111aelmootf6rp,-----rjnt" t'--I-3:— ,, ,,,... .' beight(4100 fat 62 ,...._.r.....-=--• Dastmene SIMMOSIN Ptindps1 Struciares, 05 SEX •3 ',, 0.5 OH noel= than 15 feet i i , ,_ VisorAn*Min. Of \it( ',' 1100010/ 1200 SP i I. N . . , tk 7 — ''''' 1 i I, ( i-- i t I 'I ''''''' '' •T. i d14::: aft (beadles WO*SWIM%*On eltall be the vatical tkortaturb ficio!ilifirei isabbable nabbed neer anotioa to die uppermost Soleil ouOiot davvilon of iber MS amok or Biddies IWO)c Cesebbebineifilt of two otgacear Willey*Am fatopm of+Istessision onto*toptimonots. AS digester&me is tem West otketwise soled --,,..._. /-/1-_- ( 1 V....{1-._....."- --- •,_ •I Ems look dub be remand as lkil loser A. If the pored is served by a public riglu-ckway,setback is nesesused nein the edjuoure OW-of-way nat. S. if*.pee*Is used by a pewees reed.setback is rocasured nom the heck istruth(if airhol)or edged pavement(it MI curbed). *2 flaildiog brisk for tha tomb proparry liee sdjacen1 so Arbor Trace in the"Rt"tract shell be IS arrifig for a mosiontaia*Oa of 150 feet, *3 Mow balictiop with i comma oictikratund dime are seek&skewed or other trees one apreabef,and welb sae met wend to ereelbec the setbedrs cm be laboiatetadeely rulaced. Distance Between Principal Structures Distance Between Principal Structures Reduced 1111110111111 Reduced Jr Distance Between Principal Structures Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced. "It has been staff's interpretation for decades that the reduction in building separation can be reduced from 200 feet and that reduction is not limited." Executive Summary page 4 of 8 "During the CCPC hearings, when asked how much of a reduction could be administratively approved with the existing language of footnote 3, planning staff replied, "...the basic question is, is the reduction in setbacks or separation of structures limited by the PUD document? And the answer is no, the separation is unlimited. I can't see any grounds in there for intent to reduce it a certain amount, or it would have been specified...There simply is nothing that limits the amount of reduction." (Page 55 of CCPC January 11, 2008 Public Hearing, Attachment "E"). " Executive Summary page 4 of 8 The table below identifies the present and historical application of the building setback reduction. Summary of Common Architectural Theme(CAT)Building Separation Setback Reductions Development Setback Required Setback Approved(utilizing Percent Reduction CAT) Water Park Place @ Pelican (1/2 Bldg Height) 100 feet 25 feet 75% Bay Sand Pointe @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Isle Verde @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Villa Cantana @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Vizcaya @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Bouganillas Condo @ Lago Front:35 feet Side:25'Rear:35 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 42%40%57%60% Verde feet Bldg Sep:25' Cordoba @ Lely Resort Front:20 feet Side: 10 feet Bldg 6.4 feet 3.1 feet 5.3 feet 68%69%47% Sep: 10 feet Kalea Bay @ Cocohatchee (1/2 the sum of Bldg 100 feet 50% Bay PUD Heights) 200 feet Executive Summary page 6 of 8 Correction 7; Location bilis. sttj ca Forward Date Status Changed :216/2C1E Commerce; we c ,r vide :he location arc duel QCrI= cry or boosed build inu (inclucrigis nJ bund inc that a re to n Djli ru 2 shod£ E.,teaved mcg, so a.s t no aooearto beperellel euiinQ L / it is to remain gi a with Building % ther t mu5tvied. setbacka establisheo in the b. - lite U! . ; ii I , .ow Ill " II .: yr Ng ' Nu .LI Nor No MI 'fir;. BM .I. I! Kms' , . .w II .. • �.-. U Nor MI . .. U .. 1111.. . . n' ■ 4 Building Width Kalea Bay Comparison between the Settlement SDP and 2nd Phase SDP Building Widths and Building Separations Settlement SDP 2nd Phase SDP variance Building 1 width 260 310 50 separation 153 109 -44 Building 2 width 260 310 50 separation 126 165 39 Building 3 width 260 310 50 separation 127 100 -27 Building 4 width 260 310 50 separation 341 106 -235 Building 5 width 260 310 50 1,300 747 1,550 480 250 -267 63.5% 36.5% 76.4% 23.6% 19.2% -35.7% 2,047 2,030 flyy� f dt tt"ff ,?W'.S • • � ,'•., i . W 'iIi f aimielrommf • : t IP.. N `J• AS - 1 y il , ' , �� 1 j E. 1 a ) y t :liti:PMEISa.*•'• ., .1**:::::. '4 404 ..''''''''' , \-1 r,',k,...-:: *:: --, ... i 1, 0 1 1,i, •*:• ..,„,e0--t , ,;,•.•.•,•-• ••.„... ' ., %.1,14,, ,.i../lot ,,,,,,, -o, f _Jik,Atfit • , ! ,:1 i ,\ ,t. ..,..c1,-, 0.,, ,i, 77 ,i. , , ,u,,,, ..,... r4-, : .-i- • • :4 .72;. % ilk \ , '----7,t, 1 '.:15-',.---. -L'::'-1-':-'.•." .:..........,4"•4•' ...'Y':' '°-'16\ m N Aire, ,/,'V \ 2".0'4::'' iii!. 1 `•• iii► ' 0.r • ��,. 1 1 ! • , rte. " t�`lcI. y i--•;-:. f,,•:-,/,.•:.-7•.;\-0...•:.;r1['.'•:•::•"":•Y•:":"I•:.I,1F.i.L,e;4•, iYi.F-ice trZ , i < • f l• tit • • • 41 9rw's� 1 �-�i Yt�, i f z' -) 1-'\ �C\ raw ® 5� p • V:"'.., '� ..GAS ® � ^} - -46 Settlement .v; i r r rr r.i .,.... ��i', l �.�� __� asp ` --2,..., . ... 1__�i 1-, A 1 yy�T 7t i "i.,�' ` '' 11), Z',�-e fid{' �o w ,4 1. �, , �, n . , , a ,",, � -�-- LP ( r<w a. ' C i 1 I. I � ' . . vik' 4. , } a. it ,li. 1 TY > f R"` - if �. Cyt- . . a.--- t .,,.., 1 ?; fir . '. a ! i S . .� 1 1; III Current Building Height I r I Maximum Building Height Maximum Building Height = 20 stories for a maximum height of 200 feet BH: (Building Height): Building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure. Only used for Front Yard,Side Yard and Rear Yard. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION ZONING&LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 2004-05 DATE:November 10,2004 LDC SECTION:1.09.02(Definitions:Building,zoned height of) SUBJECT:Exemptions from Building Height Limitations LNITIATED BY:Zoning Department Staff BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATIONS: The following language is contained within the definition of zoned building height referred to above:"Rooftop recreational space and accessory facilities are also exempted from the limitations established for measuring the height of buildings," The Code does not further define"recreational space and accessory facilities," and a request for clarification of this language,with regard to the intent of the Code,has been received. DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): It is my determination that the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased building height,and refers to unenclosed,unroofed,and unairconditioned space for recreational use. This would include such uses as tennis courts,sun decks,running tracks,gym and exercise equipment,and swimming pools or spas which are not raised above rooftop level. The reference to accessory facilities would consist of those exceptions to height limitation identified in LDC Section 4.02.01-D.1 as infrastructure in support of the building,including structures which do not consist of air-conditioned, habitable space, such as those used to house equipment (pumps, condensers,generators,elevators,etc.). AUTHOR: Ross Gochenaur (for Susan Murray, '.ICP, Director, Department of Zoning & Land Development Review) cc:Project planners Michael R.Fernandez,AIC?,President,PDI Florida Building Code Definitions HABITABLE SPACE. A space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, screen enclosures, sunroom Categories I, II and III as defined in the AAMA/NPEA/NSA 2100, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces OCCUPIABLE SPACE. A room or enclosed space designed for human occupancy in which individuals congregate for amusement, educational or similar purposes or in which occupants are engaged at labor, and which is equipped with means of egress and light and ventilation facilities meeting the requirements of this code. Settlement Agreement #19 present and former elected or appointed officials, ... ... shall work together in good faith to accomplish the intent of this Agreement and Release." END Appellants Filing Administrative Appeal Type Ill Decision LDC Section 10.04.04 1. Diane Rupnow; 14555 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 2. Judith S. Palay; 14648 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 3. Frank Halas; 2531 Golfside Drive; Naples, FL 34110 4. Diane Halas; 2531 Golfside Drive; Naples, FL 34110 5. Diane D. Allen; 14806 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 6. Bruce Q. Allen 14806 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 7. William J. Bryzgalski; 14746 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 8. Phoebe B. Bryzgalski; 14746 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 9. Margaret T. Manna; 15498 Cedarwood Lane#202; Naples, FL 34110 10. Ferdinand J. Manna; 15498 Cedarwood Lane#202; Naples, FL 34110 11. Charlene Fisher; 14660 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 12. John Schaffer; 14660 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 13. Patrick Carey; 14611 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 14. Harold Linnerud; 17 Bluegill Avenue; Naples, FL 34108 15. August Larson; 425 Cove Tower Dr. # 1002; Naples, FL 34010 16. Hilda Glazer; 857 Carrick Bend Circle#203; Naples, FL 34110 17. Emily Kearns; 14722 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 18. Chris Kearns; 14722 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 19. Asimina Ginis; 14616 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 20. Barbara Schiffer; 15495 Cedarwood Lane, Apt. 105; Naples, FL 34110 21. Laurence A. Defuge; 15495 Cedarwood Lane, Apt 305; Naples, FL 34110 22. Ruth A. Defuge; 15495 Cedarwood Lane, Apt. 305; Naples, FL 34110 23. Charlene Raymond; 14652 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 24. Stephen Raymond; 14652 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 25. John C. Fox; 15161 Cedarwood Lane#1603; Naples, FL 34110 26. Gretchen K. Fox; 15161 Cedarwood Lane#1603; Naples, FL 34110 27. Arnold Hulzebosch; 14785 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 28. Anita Hulzebosch; 14785 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 29. Aric Rudden; 14542 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 30. Susan Leach Snyder; 17 Bluebill Ave. Apt. 803; Naples, FL 34108 31. James Floyd Snyder; 17 Bluebill Ave. Apt. 803; Naples, FL 34108 32. Patricia A. Clemente; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 205; Naples, FL 34110 33. Paul Clemente Jr.; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 205; Naples, FL 34110 34. Cheryl A. Wiecek; 14680 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 35. Marilyn Ann Stendahl; 14813 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 36. Carl Peter John Stendahl II; 14813 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 37. Mary Anne Lostaunau; 14742 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 38. Katherine Updegrove; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 101; Naples, FL 34110 39. William Noyes; 14576 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 40. Geraldine Noyes; 14576 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 41. Dennis Scharf; 14644 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 42. Donna Scharf; 14644 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 43. Edward Schiffer; 15495 Cedarwood LN APT 105; Naples, FL 34110 44. Nancy Rene Barton; 14581 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 45. Bill Larson; 425 Cove Tower Dr. # 1002; Naples, FL 34110 46. Nancy Straus; 14592 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 47. Jerry Straus; 14592 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 48. Brenda Sperry; 14595 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 49. Stephanie Fleetman; 14636 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 50. John Robert Tozer; 14581 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 51. Jim Wydick; 14591 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 52. Sandy Green; 14591 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 53. Louis R. DePrisco; 9-501 Arbor Lake Drive; Naples, FL 34110 54. Kathleen Gallagher; 849 Carrick Bend Circle#201; Naples, FL 34110 55. Tom Duncan; 14620 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 56. Anna Duncan; 14620 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 57. Arthur S. Baldadian; 425 Dockside Drive, Unit 901; Naples, FL 34110 58. Stephen Nichols; 14734 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 59. Mary Nichols; 14734 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 60. Kimberly Campbell; 14801 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 61. Walter Waselovich; 14801 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 62.Jerry Mansbach; 14615 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 63. Shirley Halpern; 14615 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 64. Gilbert Banker; 14624 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 65. Dr. Karen Wasko; 14538 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 66. Laraine Deutsch; 15525 Cedarwood Lane#102; Naples, FL 34110 67. Richard T. Peebles; 14551 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 68. Douglas R. Bloom; 14551 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 69. Elizabeth T. Cressy; 14664 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 70. David A. Cressy; 14664 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 71. John H. Rupnow; 14555 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 72. Steven Picheny; 8231 Bay Colony Drive, Apt 404; Naples, FL 34108 73. Joe Wood; 669 Mainsail PI.; Naples, FL 34110 74. Judith K. Cooper; 14534 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 75. Gail K. Frazee; 858 Carrick Bend Circle# 101; Naples, FL 34110 76. James D. Shaw; 841 Carrick Bend Circle Unit 201; Naples, FL 34110 77. Katherine P. Shaw; 841 Carrick Bend Circle Unit 201; Naples, FL 34110 78. Nanlee K. Hall; 866 Carrick Bend Circle# 103; Naples, FL 34110 79. Diane M. Mascianica; 14516 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 80. Francis S. Mascianica, Jr.; 14516 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 81. Robert LaForgia 14676 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 82. Alan Massey; 5615 Sherborn Drive; Naples, FL 34110 83. Patricia Massey; 5615 Sherborn Drive; Naples, FL 34110 84. Ellen Wright; 14688 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 85. Josephine Dingier; 1001 Arbor Lake Drive# 106; Naples, FL 86. Richard Dingier; 1001 Arbor Lake Drive# 106; Naples, FL 34110 87.Joni Gonnelly; 15495 Cedarwood Lane; Naples, FL 34110 88. Joe Gonnelly; 15495 Cedarwood Lane; Naples, FL 34110 89. Margaret K. Ross; 14520 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 90. Patsy A. Abbett; 14512 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 91. Dinah Rosenthal; 14566 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 92. Doug Fee: 754 Pan Am Avenue; Naples, FL 34110 93.Thomas A. Lynch; 14710 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 May 31, 2017 !,...,41 till:gill vi.„01.1,.4,3-E .3,.!ii.IR 111404. th/11011 Iii!I ir,i1,14:9,1111,1:1 .:: 1131 I:31 11:1,5111,1i11.111411ii ii! , -' ;:lii,t',74,-;,1,,,144 i/i 4 ;.4111;1;• 0;iii.i40; ',' ;,;[:i'r 111i44;4/',.,;!§1 0 tii415V3i0i1111 i 4,ii 10 5;q:/i36 .;/.44;111, ;,./ii,zi,MIEH/ft.%.14^11 r./.' 1/.'4 i'-; ii/';'5";/Purk;r1/ '' •z, pu, !w-,1111 itile,jeipp.044,44:, 1/.; :!,:41114114Paigki. 1:11/;,..• e,nt;TIPI 0/.Vp *Ari1/I/11i,,1.,:i ;1;1;P: i M I ap/i.,i010.49iri•/ :i: , '/!,:!:;s10,41:1-i'iiltiz,1 -.=-'A 40PL7-%.0i/i/v,: 45.1 i:',.%!:?.,,6', 10.,/i,e,!•;;O:it.gt/ /i-1.:11,01H!,..4,44":i i '; !!.., A 4,ZqpiX,iii*;', IN.',- 'iX • Iali'tti!triiiV4-1;i ' ''.iPWiiigi.i'Oi!'''':'''!, ti'41;4•W'A q'OV;'fiii!--;i4iillitizA!!!?Iii, ;.1 110 '-!:', tP:oii"OriPpTi i! tikrqi„ipi,l, 1 ! !1.101!!!kitil;9 1 1 OtApP,' Ry6!,, lqilii1110:4'il!if6i ',' ;, 1 !: ..011070,,,;;;;:41i s : iiej:10!0:1!!61,1 ,, ::., 6 4,,Vdi6i,i,. Itit,0 IAINA;.1p0 iiiilAiP„ ,!:gi', 1 0 % TftiEll'i4:!.46;!! „ li!iitgiopfLi06:;:i Vo;ti;:':!!it!',0:il Iti ', t!!Atigt:!! .44!!!i 4ii!!;'! Ji'i!ji , -iosi,cel-ik6w,t i, 1 i!s:ye...„-,1.-,op;Al! 4;1 i, 16116p1,,,,,,„4. !,ci's;,!,.tp., p,?!.”,14,.,wfoir.91,z.v: ,i-;.,. 'fi ,i,', ,,p-,;;;-?,,i2,r.,ililiiH, 40,ii 3„:4,..,0q6q 1 4 ,-,.41,0.0p!•4 t3-,, ,!m: 1 i Ittpiog, ,T.,4-1';',h, ,. ;,i'' ',;,i,p ,, :!•`,1,.; I t 1.\' 1. ylq4i1,1Ir,,li,..1:, . , ,.0 04 k ,4• - •,,,I, 1;',.= . i 01 101M cit• '''''4'.'- .° ', t, ' q :t, iiiiii III ;,0111 . q .7H.Qni's,• Mq'n.e:':-.. S.,,4 i,F..,-; 11. , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (Th Jlta " ,Wa ' iS f T(Irf 1 $'1-'i I I' i 1 I I 6 6 8,•••4 -',,- ,,,i,,-0 --?`41.;,,, ,,,., , 4 -0, IIII IIIIIII CI) 140/111 -',P• F A IIl'ill , I1 IIIIH H., c ! rrl li 1 , z I 674 i ;;;; ':i g ,:.• 'Z '!,- ' ''."" %.,,i ,'",-;,, Ei ,.•!k`.1. 0 1.'t r; , ,., . :`,..".i. i%I., ' • '' 111 i,h 4/ i 0 / 1 6C1 tia 01 1* w Fp m ItII --I Ir... t-'1 'ftNic o—z 4Z) u-) co IU Ic... - W tO CU ......; Itbi 6`.F,' 1 '''' „ ' tr -- 1r ' / m 0 col -r-1--, r-- ro kizi lab IT:0 .., 4-41. r-- r- ---, 75-„„ ..t•‘.0 • ,1,,--cl " 0 K ,__, ts(D, pg ..._.' . ..7•••/,-,,,, , AD 1. „, ,,,1 lz..) l'i. . ' ?'"/,c.,wig.• *A,,,,)_,74,4,..k,.p_.. : ., c Fr) m CI -0 0,) ,::, ca 1Tii :c€0 rO, t•-••4''''' 0 • - ''-''', . , ••••• 2 1 ,, %,.,.,J,_„ AIN i i;),„ \ ',- ' '‘ Z T Z 1 C.) t n,,,,• co I `.-.7'",, rift j 11 ••••,.. 1•• 1 ',7•:'' ',....,,,S.N\N , (" •.71 ,f,I ‘ / ! cl" t•N.1 ct [--1 "::[ 1 i, 0 > cr t't) co) :7'5 ''' '''N''-f.•• .'-',--=' ;'''.,_. -•'''''' 1-7, % 'LJg4p"...c .// ) U k // > __.1 .......• t....) >I, rio...., 1)..,' .,,75,7y i,,,,-,;,•'41,;,J.7,•••1 '.. , ,,, ,•. ,/ ti.1 ,._, 44174.1 'r .,4. >: 11.4"10.1 _ , tb ,--(1,/-•-- 1 ) 1-61 v14-4 z 00 :,• ,,• 0, : fl t-••;: -1,,, ,,..; , \,,, , , -• i rn r).:- c I 1 N) I A - ' ,, •' - ' -; ; ri 1-.... , llOW:f• A ' t ')s,c--, 'E' -i,;_E.Ei -1 i,,,d!'if -4- .,3i0 3:':410; 1,, 0,, 1,4 1E1 M <,•z,tti,7 v.; ',-,', '','••t"..t,,,C,:i?, . 4\) lbh 1 -nitwit,i _ 1 F ”IE,,I,, i 1 . _f-,; ,1 Ei'i :',,:.! I?,i [.•,,, 1 ii II - iii, ?:, r" t! E i ! . ! E ! : ! ! t' 0 Cif) 1-11t,1 t 1 ,„ y„:,,,..1; _ , •, !,,I,at''''i!/, .'„1, ,..4,T., E-Tv;,,,,.a :, „,--,;:i ; f' '1-,-,...1.•]" "I''' ''' i i • 4! 41 1 ''‘,"' 4 4 1 .• if:'`• •-•';';:.• 4 .'+ ri 44"414 ',:tkOlp;i:4 -'‘.,.t›. f',', f.' h , - , ! ' 1 1 , 0 rri '*1 [i CO iftireas 1 CO *444.1.111 \••••••••, Illi 114411110 ii 1“.,? 1thli' It; ,,• '. ,; U7, .-Th,..;".W4..t,'flr-1 i ill 'IlWiil .HH ..41 $: 11 :, t -E-4,-4:-- .1„„ft,'777TiVf-t A U•';,1'., kaildh I I'l KilliF 1 ''.' 1 1 '*' '' '' ' ' " "'' 'r,'„ ' • ' • '' " ' i • ' : -t ', 4‘°'11Pit' 1 1 WI t f/ 1 iA:te; ,111 • 11 ', , , : 1 LI qkti'0W44 ,...„ ,.'l r„... ....";„+•'',,,I.,,!,,,,,,l.-1 W ;7: ;,..,1;:,!•>.,:Z() 1 *51 t R *'''' 1 ':•. :.• i ,.'.,' 9 i ,..:. ,..- ,, 74,Z7,-1; l :l ll .Il i iii3i,-;; I1 11 -' - I •, 4 •• vv , t , • • • ' t) ' hp r j4 , " "... ..,...,....„...;.....,. . ,. . . • . , . 0„, .t..\ . ,. . . .. . %. 7 , #:,,,,,w•i -_,,_, \_ „, , - , -,,-( 3a -•--,,•...\,i. / gg 4,1000.0 . � • � o w � (romitiv J\1 �I� G A 4��_ oil 1 i ,s " 4 5' 8'b/� <7�.i 1III_�� I1. +. , i Y x \ti al •• 7 l ��6 ? of fi GOAS,'Ra•�D iry' L ;:.4 LJ�t i ; s�3 Y { "Th I 11 I l�t i 4 �i L I' ,, \\ b a a(N:. ,: I` .a' ,, asp .0 a ( 1 _ p%}" C� �� f f s i , 5 tL1 _, E, , pR 9r. 10,I ? d F a► r ori I t / C s_ _... _ .moi--- -,- ___. ___ .;c_ I S4i, ~2RB&T DRNE C-R. 901 ,- - -__..._,l — WAY) ___ PUBU Iiis"@d II za 1g 1'i0 , I '41,i ` 1//111 l q Ili E ° • ;'3W a '"Old 4d 1 ai tnt1ht 40 i d o ". � 'I21-6;2.12E € 3 ZXP, eP 3, 6d 1 t 9' 1 tl s v a ,a14 d-d 4 N b i ;tier a i C 4l_ad,q i d ' p -1 d 44d z41 i' a € § , �,t11 11 , i .4 - m 1111 4. ds 446 4 6 g O. q, t1'1 ,1 1 ;,4 1114 d I" e 4 z i` ' ,4 a4 c Cd 3 ;; it 4!d,11i c4 4 a, s ,46ddl xd S! ,d4 4.=;1t e, Fy t e a Ts d ;11 ' it is 4A 1 i 4 a j gg6 c 14 t lis1'�Li 1 `^ S r 4 :- 9 � 9 F L�`35 9 i ag ` 4 §Y gg) t 4? _ B 3 t 14 11 j 444;44 q/ g3' /, i {. I t? o� ,, , 4 s l4 4 r 9 4 4 4 A , a I z I' 6, zi °il z�i 11 44{E Q ,,, tie¢ d 1.0 Y°; a it 6r?p iFi yd l l' t At s `a$i 444%.4 d l 4d a°z 1 1 44 £ 1g64 i4 ,4 i 4, i 0 , .¢lid P14°z l4 6 44 s �-0 :?Cal a l ,l 4 =d § A' 4• 4Xld I{,.g 44i d -.14 �6 1 r s d " sa RM , a ---- ' ----.." i (7 ' P 6.4.7k .,,,,:p, , 6, m N g fs� 551. g s• ea z R a� � x :s '11::',..: o y SII It1 Ali r 4 5s £ 6"#-,, br „,,... '6..,7., I ry kk O � 9�:� .� i 3 x2 3 ' Z y 0 $ ? >S; s,rn P! p4 r s O I TA 1#<s Ill `c "t y e,74 n Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC ” ' Omega '- i ry:.. v:uria 5100 Lafayette Street �.sz'•7° .::. •�. ,,,�,r,.a«�.. rr+ut,x<rm+rcx«rns '. _ i Detroit•MI 48207 or..�.r oup Consulting 33 X67.-7Dp0 a .. ..... _. _ _... KALEA BAY-Pheae IWI SOPA to AR-6281 Sections 876,77920,ro.nahp 405,Ronga 25E b,',4' ..:1;;;.,;:11), ;� -..:,,,,,,,47):..,..; �;., .... - Meatal Site Plan Collar County,Fio6do o•. Itu\„ w u re n..e (.ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REQUEST Appellants are requesting that the Collier County Board of Commissioners reverse the: 1. administrative reduction in building separation and 2. administrative increase in building widths and 3. administrative approval of additional dwelling units and 4. administrative increase in overall building height all of which are described in further detail in the narrative below, and were made without a public hearing, and without providing a procedural due process noticed opportunity for adversely affected third parties, including Appellants and the public, to be heard. Appellants further request the Collier County Board of Commissioners mandate compliance with the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release, signed on June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts the following day, which references the 3 SDPs approved before, or concurrent with, recording of the Settlement Agreement and referenced in the Settlement Agreement, paragraph 3 (Exhibit 19) and require that any significant changes to the PUD and the SDPs approved in conjunction with said Settlement Agreement be approved by the BCC and require a supermajority vote of the BCC pursuant to the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release. II. Narrative Describing the Request and Legal Basis for Appeal The Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement, PUD, the Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission, and three SDPs reviewed and approved by staff, were approved by the Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as "BCC") on April 22, 2008. (Exhibit 7).This action was taken as part of the Summary Agenda. The BCC approved all documents as presented without objection from the County Attorney, County Manager, county staff, the petitioner, and the petitioner's agent or citizens. The Settlement Agreement, signed on June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts the following day, is a legally binding document in which paragraph 21 unambiguously relates that any changes must be "executed with the same formalities" specified in this Agreement. (Exhibit 19) Thus, changes must be approved by a supermajority of the BCC. Even apart from the Settlement Agreement, the Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000, contains a Development Standards table (Exhibit 1 p 2375) with the formula for determining "distance between principal structures" (0.5 SBH *fn3) The formula 0.5 SBH means that the distance between buildings should be one-half the sum of the buildings' height (200' + 200' = 400' divided by 2 = 200'). Therefore, the distance between two buildings 200' in height should be at least 200'. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000 does contains a *footnote 3: "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." Footnote 3 should not be applied to allow unreasonable, significant major reductions or increases without first going to the BOCC. Footnote 3 administrative reductions should only be applied reasonably to minor or insignificant reductions unless these changes are brought back to the BOCC and procedural due process is afforded to affected third parties and citizens. Administrative staff reductions should not have been used to drastically and significantly reduce setback distances between buildings to nearly half the required setback, or to increase the width of buildings 50' wider than shown in the PUD. The setback were nearly halved without a public hearing and opportunity for public comment on significant changes to building separation distances without procedural due process notice and a right to be heard in a BOCC public hearing. The county staff does not have the requisite authority to make modifications to the SDPs utilizing administrative. Despite this fact, the following changes to Cocohatchee Bay aka Kalea Bay have already been implemented in phase 1 and have been approved by staff for phases II-VI: -- Building Separations: Building separations are less than code minimums of 1/2 the sum of the building heights, and less than the already reduced and adjusted separations (as per PUD footnote #3, Exhibit 7A) shown on the SDPs attached to the PUD and Settlement Agreement.Those separations are as follows: building 1 to 2, 153 feet; building 2 to 3, 126 feet; building 3 to 4, 127 feet; building 4 to 5, 341 feet. (Exhibit 7A). Building 1 is now nearly completed and is 50 feet wider than shown on the BCC approved SDPs. The apparent intent is to also make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building to the plan. Increasing the width of these buildings would further exacerbate the building separation issue and result in them being just 109 feet, 165 feet, 100 feet and 100 feet apart. Staff interpretation that there is no limit to an administrative reduction building separations because of clauses such as 'footnote #3', is not a credible interpretation, reducing the language to an absurdity. Additionally, staff cannot ignore the fact that the CCPC memo was included on the Summary Agenda and was approved by The Board on April 22, 2008. (Exhibit 7C). To quote from the CCPC review that was accepted and approved by Board action, "However, as a result of language in the PUD, the CCPC recommended reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. As an alternative to the reduction in separation, greater distances could be provided by moving alternating towers closer to Vanderbilt Drive." (Exhibit 7C). Collier staff members unilaterally, and without authority, permitted significant major modifications without noticing a public hearing by the BCC. In the Memorandum (Exhibit 33) attached to Amendment SDPA PL20160002242, in the Amendment Approval Notification, staff cited several examples of alleged historical application of administrative reduction. Only one of the citations was a high-rise and that was for a side set- back which is not a building separation issue. In Brandon Sancho's response to our request for public records (Exhibit 25) showing all instances in Collier County in which staff allowed administrative reduction of the required minimum separation between skewed buildings having a common architectural theme (Exhibit 26), "The footnote in question is related to the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD). The only project that has utilized this specific footnote is Kinsale Condominiums Phases II-VI, SDP-2004-AR-5284." Kinsale is Cocohatchee Bay as indicated later in his response. Therefore, there are no past projects analogous to the Kalea Bay project. --Width of Buildings: Building 1 is nearly completed and is 50 feet wider than shown on the BCC approved SDPs. The apparent intent is to also make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building to the plan. Increasing the width of these buildings would further exacerbate the building separation issue and result in them being just 109 feet, 165 feet, 100 feet and 100 feet apart. --Guest Suites: The developer has added twelve (12) guest suites as accessory units. The PUD lists guest suites and cabanas as permitted uses and they are to be counted as part of the total number of residential units-- 590. Four 20 story buildings, each with 120 units, equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Adding twelve guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So, as of this date, and without bringing the issue to the BCC for a public hearing and without the approval by a BCC supermajority required by the Settlement Agreement, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of units specified. -- Height: Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top structures such as the community meeting room and fitness center. According to the PUD, "building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the upper-most finished ceiling elevation of the roof structure." The elevated pool adds to the building height as well. Also, County Land Development Code staff and Zoning & Land Development staff issued an official clarification on the issue of roof-top accessory structures: SC 2004-05. "...the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased height, and refers to unenclosed, unroofed, and non-air-conditioned space for recreation use." (Exhibit 36). A housing unit (a habitable structure) has been added to the upper garage level, conflicting further with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. Numerous attempts to attain an explanation for such conduct have fallen on deaf ears. These include attempts such as: asking questions to staff (Exhibit 15,26), speaking with our District 2 Commissioner (Time line Feb 24, 2017), and addressing each of the Commissioners (Time line: Feb 22, 2017, Feb 27, 2017, March 20, 2017) to share our concerns. (Exhibits 15-22) We have attended BCC meetings (April 18, 2017-Exhibit 27), sent letters to the newspaper (Exhibit 8, 8A), and emailed or visited staff (Exhibit 22A), but to no avail. These attempts took place both before and after construction of building one. In fact, appellants were forced to engage counsel [ Ralf Brookes] in early 2015. Appellants discovered that plans existing at the County are inconsistent with those submitted to South Florida Water Management District -- preventing any factual analysis to be conducted. (Exhibit 13A) On March 24, 2015, the developer attempted to breach the Agreement by adding 62 housing units to the eastern parcel (Exhibits 9, 10, 11). At that time, the Collier County Commissioners denied this attempt and agreed not to open or amend said Settlement Agreement. Residents in North Naples thought that the Settlement Agreement and PUD would protect the Cocohatchee Bay area as this Agreement promised "forever" and "in perpetuity." However, that has not proven to be true. Counsel for the appellants sent a letter to Collier County via the County Attorney (Exhibit 16) in which he stated our objections to non-compliance with the Settlement Agreement and PUD. Objections included: unreasonable building separations, the means by which those were determined, the lack of public hearing and the allowance of habitable space in the upper garage level. County Commissioners did not receive a copy, hence visits to each. If Kalea Bay were to be built as currently proposed, it would not be compatible with the neighborhood. (Exhibit 38) Nowhere else in this area are there high-rises where the distances between buildings have this degree of unreasonable separation. Ill. Relief Sought 1. ISSUE 1 NO PUBLIC HEARING: County staff has allowed changes to the SDPs approved in conjunction with the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement without a public hearing. As explained in the "Narrative Describing This Request," staff made significant changes that far exceeded minor adjustments, were not reasonable adjustments, and will have an observable negative impact on our community forever. RELIEF SOUGHT: The Collier County Board of Commissioners reject the significant adverse and unreasonable changes made by staff to the original SDPs. In addition, we request that the Collier County Board of Commissioners upholds the Settlement Agreement and requires that any changes to SDPs should be reviewed by staff and then submitted to the BCC for a public hearing. 2. ISSUE 2 BUILDING SEPARATION: The Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000, contains a Development Standards table (Exhibit 1 p 2375) with the formula for determining "distance between principal structures" (0.5 SBH *fn3) referencing a *footnote 3: "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." The formula 0.5 SBH means that the distance between buildings should be one-half the sum of the buildings' height (200' + 200' = 400' divided by 2 = 200'). Therefore, the distance between two buildings 200' in height should be 200'. Footnote 3 should be applied reasonably, and should not be used to drastically and significantly reduce setbacks, especially when buildings were made 50' wider than shown in the PUD. (See Issue 3 below). Taken to the extreme, footnote 3 should not be used to eliminate the requirements for building separation with no limit to the amount of administrative reduction. Typically, administrative reductions might involve a few feet or small percent but not drastic, significant reductions that will have an observable negative impact on our community forever. The staffs' unlimited interpretation of footnote 3 allowed Kalea Bay building separations to be reduced from the 200' required by code to 153', 126', 127' between buildings and reduced the setback from the lake to 431'. We have also highlighted a portion of a quote from the "CCPC SUMMARY OF COCOHATCHEE BERT HARRIS REVIEW" (Exhibit 7C) which is part of the Executive Summary dated April 22, 2008. It states, "However, as a result of the language in the PUD, the CCPC recommended that reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement Agreement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC." If you allow the widths of buildings 2-5 to be increased 50 feet(our 3rd ISSUE), building separations will be "less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC." RELIEF SOUGHT: We ask the Board of County Commissioners to enforce the building separation formula and require the 200' separation between buildings. For the future of our community, we request that limits be in place for the amount or degree of administrative reductions that can be made by County staff. While a 5 % reduction might be reasonable, a 50% reduction to the SDPs approved with the Settlement Agreement and PUD is not reasonable! 3. ISSUE 3 BUILDING WIDTHS: County staff administratively approved an increase in width from 260' to 310' for Kalea Bay Building 1. Apparently, the intent is to make Buildings 2-5 at least 50' wider as well, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building. Making the buildings wider exacerbates the already reduced and adjusted building separations. If buildings 2-5 are allowed to become 50' wider, the towers would be just 109; 165'100' and 100'apart —in most cases half the distance they should be. These buildings will appear to be a wall of concrete with very limited light, air flow and view between them. Depictions drawn to scale (Exhibit 37) illustrate that it would truly create a "condo-canyon" on the landscape along with the deep, uninterrupted shadows for drivers, pedestrians, and bikers. It would certainly detract from the sense of place in our community. The expansion of building widths, combined with the unreasonable administrative adjustment to building separations, gives Kalea Bay a look that is not compatible with our neighborhood. RELIEF SOUGHT: Retain the building widths approved in the PUD. Do not allow buildings 2-5 to be increased in width from 260' to 310'. This does not comply with the SDPs approved with the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 4. ISSUE 4 GUEST SUITES: The developer has added 12 guest suites as accessory units. The PUD lists guest suites under "Uses Permitted" as a "Principal Use" along with multi-family dwellings. Four 20 story buildings, each with 120 units, equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Adding twelve (12) guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So, as of this date, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of dwelling units specified. RELIEF SOUGHT: Require that guest suites be counted as part of the total number of residential units, a maximum total of 590. 5. ISSUE 5 BUILDING HEIGHT: Four (4) of the Kalea Bay towers are limited to 20 stories or a maximum of 200' in height and the fifth building is limited to 17 stories or a maximum of 175' in height. Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top features such as the community meeting room and fitness center which would violate these height limits. See Kalea Bay's website. RELIEF SOUGHT: Do not allow the Applicant to add an additional story to each building by enclosing the fitness center and community meeting room. Enforce the maximum height of each of the buildings as shown on the SDPs per the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 6. ISSUE 6 GARAGE DWELLING UNIT: A housing unit (habitable structure) has been added to the upper garage level which further conflicts with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. It also appears that this housing unit will not be counted as part of the density. RELIEF SOUGHT: Remove the dwelling unit from the upper level of the garage or count that garage level with the habitable floors. Furthermore, if the unit is allowed, it must be counted as part of the 590- maximum density per the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 7. ISSUE 7 RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: Paragraph eight of the Settlement Agreement states that one-fifth of the golf course parcel, east of Vanderbilt Drive, is to be placed into RECORDED Restrictive Covenants before or at the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each Kalea Bay building. Building 1 should be getting its Certificate of Occupancy in 2017. No Restrictive Covenant has been recorded. When the Restrictive Covenant is issued, it should be reviewed by the County Attorney prior to its recording. REQUEST: Monitor and be aware of this rapidly approaching requirement contained in the Settlement Agreement. That land was purposed to provide green space and additional buffering for adjacent communities and one-fifth of the golf course parcel, east of Vanderbilt Drive must be placed into a RECORDED Restrictive Covenant before or at the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each Kalea Bay building. 8. ISSUE 8 INVASIVE CONTROL: Glen Eden on the Lakes, for example, has been paying to have invasives removed from its 67.5' buffer (preserve) with the Cocohatchee Bay golf course for at least 15 years. However, the developer had not done maintenance within his 100' adjoining native vegetation buffer until 2016. At that point, the invasives had taken over to such a degree that the removal of invasives resulted in nearly total destruction of the vegetation buffer. REQUEST: Replant buffer with native trees and maintain vegetation buffer (preserve area) now that the invasive trees have finally been removed. We also request that compliance with county regulations regarding maintenance of preserves and removal of invasive species be monitored. 9. ISSUE 9 10 FOOT PATHWAY ON WEST SIDE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE: Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement requires a 10-foot pathway be constructed on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. It states that "This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. In 2016, the County dug up the old walkway west of Vanderbilt Drive to install new water pipes. Then, the County installed a new walkway west of Vanderbilt Drive. In some places, it is 6 feet wide; in some places, it is 8 feet wide; in some places, it is 9 feet wide. In some places, it is black asphalt and in other places it looks like cement sidewalk. It is hodge-podge in appearance and is definitely not a "10-foot pathway". We observed the County doing all the work on this walkway, but we do not know if it was built by or with Lodge funds. RELIEF SOUGHT: Require Lodge to pay for and install a complete 10- foot pathway on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive as per terms in the Settlement Agreement. IN SUMMARY: Appellants are requesting that the Collier County Board of Commissioners mandate compliance with the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release, signed on June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts the following day. Compliance as requested includes the Settlement Agreement, PUD, Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission and three SDPS reviewed and approved by staff. We request that you do not allow staff to approve changes to the SDPs WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING. We request that the building separation formula be applied to require building separation of%2 sum of the total building height for Kalea Bay towers. At the very least, we require that building separations not be "less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. Furthermore, we request that the BCC put limits in place regarding the amount or degree of administrative reductions that can be made by county staff. Clearly defined limitations would result in uniformity, transparency and consistency in staff decisions. We request that you do not allow staff to approve Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5 to be built 50 feet wider than the 260 feet shown on the approved SDPs. It is unfair to allow county staff to administratively change this important project component WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING. It is unconscionable to deny citizens and neighbors their procedural due process rights. Appellants deserve the opportunity to be heard IN A PUBLIC HEARING on whether these changes should have been approved by the County with staff input only.The changes that were made to Kalea Bay SDPs by staff were not minor changes of a couple of feet but major departures from what the citizens thought they were getting. REQUEST FOR RETURN OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL FEE FOR THIRD PARTY CITIZEN OBJECTORS: We request that the Collier County Commissioners waive or return the fee for this Administrative Appeal. We have tried contacting Commissioners on numerous occasions prior to the plans being approved by staff to let them know that the construction at Kalea Bay was not being done according to the Settlement Agreement, PUD and SDPs. The County Attorney advised us that the only way to bring this to your attention was to file an Administrative Appeal.That hardly seems fair. We hope you will waive the fee. Thank you. /s/Ralf Brookes Attorney for Appellants June 6, 2017 lett: 4116441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 RIci $26,00 C1I11 !0 SKI BOARD RECORDED in the 0llICIkL RICORDS of COLLIER COMM !L C04IIS 91.00 ii'ilIOflIC! 4711 ?LOCA 061101200$ at 10:46NK DNIGK! I. B1OC1, CLE11 EIS 7240 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this day of 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle MaRnt n, and f WHEREAS, the PUD to fuc tion is also som s referred to as the Cocohatchee ' Bay PUD, and .f 4 WHEREAS, Lodge filed a p ti n el! o {i° C T entieth Judicial Circuit in 1/4 n i tY- -th.00nr►t ' iSi n concerning the proposed and for Collier County, Flaric�a to attack y amendment to the PUD's Bald'Eagle Management Ptai that case being styled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier County as o�Q..5 -7,00n WHEREAS, on or around May 1, 2006, Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Harris Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4)(c) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. 1 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2346 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and Release, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound,Lodge and the County mutually agree to the following: 1. The County and Lodge agree to adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as"Whereas clauses"by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. The settlement documents will consist of the original PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 (Exhibit 1), the amended PUD (Exhibit 2), the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan for the amended PUD (attached as Exhibit "B" to the amended PUD), a phasing diagram entitled "Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Exht it",(Exhibi3 and a Pathway Depiction (Exhibit 4). This Agreement and Release, xvie sly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD,'` Absei an express tem in`his'Agreement and Release,the original PUD will control. ' 1 ( () ,� \ 1 : 1k, ` '- 1 ' site development plans 3. The settler iera;shall" bentinge ;t dim P ("SDPs") that Lodge has submitted being approvediby the Cc unty, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County'as.'.well..as the- evelopment standards set forth in the original PUD and as may be varied by the-express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR5283 and AR5284. 4. The County will expedite the review of these three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. The existing environmental impact statement ("EIS") does not need to be amended unless the SDPs are revised to increase wetland impact beyond the impact currently permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five(5%)percent. 5. Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential 2 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2341 condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable workforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment. 6. Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, Lodge shall contribute the sum of$3 million to the County to fund Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements. No impact fee credits shall be given for payment of this sum. Lodge recognizes that the County may request additional contributions up to the proposed road impact fees due for 590414114.tutits,to assist the County in funding the construction of the Vanderbilt p dge enhancerriiia No such additional contributions shall be required, however, until tble_County"provides evil ncc;that all parties have spent $5,500,000.00 on the Vanoilerbihi ' 4g enharieetrietW1 Any such sums paid over the initial $3 million shall ree'cOe °road impact fee-credits 'Notturig in this Agreement and • L' ✓ 4 f zf v Release, however, is intended'tQ nor shall it restnct,'in any 4.4 the County's ability under exit applicable laws,ordinances or rules*r ��uir� r�,, �(50%)of all transportation impact fees upon approval of the SDPs. These funds shall be refunded to Lodge should Lodge be permanently prevented from commencing construction based upon actions by any governmental entity or any third party. County shall be entitled to retain these funds without any need for reimbursement upon the earlier of(1) Lodge's commencement of construction of the first tower, or(2) the exhaustion of time to file any third party challenge with respect to any matter concerned by this Agreement and the attachments hereto. 7. Lodge and the County agree that the Cocohatchee Bay PUD shall be exempted from the County's PUD sunsetting provisions within the LDC until the Effective 3 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth(1/5) of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or,golf egur se,is ever discontinued or abandoned for ti.. any reason, then all of the GC -1ar1f`including without'limitation the entire golf course development area, except fear thoseipions-allowed;for th two (2) residential units, shall s-^..a' ,- rot.' ,47.---7---A, , ,-, remain forever as green op`n . . �ai�i 'bye t�iriitOdOn t to 74 Mthe uses expressly allowed it i ; 11l , . s Preserve' arce .1, y,, 1sions to these restrictive in Paragraph 5.3 of the a -. , 1 i covenants will require a super amity vote of the Board¢fCbu tty Commissioners. 9. To fully satisfy it3,oVigations to constdt.sidewalks along adjacent off-site public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway ten(10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006) in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2349 (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in Building Height, as defined in Paragraph 3.5 entitled "Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the amended PUD, and Footnote 2 thereto. 11. The maximum number of dwelling units to be constructed by Lodge shall not exceed 590 units. Of these,a maximum of 590 units may be multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However,two (2) units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as set forth in Section 4.4 in the amended PUD,attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 12. What has been referredto gas;he R-1°and R-2 Parcels shall be replaced by a single R parcel as set forth in th'e revised PUD Master Plan;'Fattached to the amended PUD. § y 1 The development standards/for the\R.Parcel are as.rset forth‘ ab le II of Paragraph 3.5 of e p m i d tAgreement and Release).o the amended PUD(except as mayy, e, re�.sl�r ,�'f dtt* s B aManagement Plan required 13. If there are .additional c ange n s 1 / by federal or state agencies, ti;further County PU`IFantendmclnt process shall be required. The County acknowledges that the kmended.-Bald Eagle anagement Plan is in compliance with the County regulations. Lodge shall be exempt from any County regulations that may be adopted in the future applicable to the Bald Eagle and the County shall defer to the state and federal regulatory permitting process relating to the Bald Eagle Management Plan and issues related thereto. Lodge, however, shall be required to notify the County of any such changes required by state or federal agencies, which will then require an administrative change by the County to any of the previously approved SDPs under review or that have been approved by the County. Any change to the construction sequencing shall be considered an insubstantial change to the SDP. 14. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit 2. 5 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2350 15. Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees, insurers, sureties, agents, attorneys, and representatives of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord.No. 2000-88, the related Bald Eagle Management Plan or any amendment or proposed amendment to the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 or the Bald Eagle Management Plan through the date this Agreement and Release are approved and authorized by the Board for the Chairman's signature including without limitation all Bert Hams Act claims and the claim asserted .in Case No. 05-967-CA This release shall be immediately effective upon the County's approval;of'the 3 SDf s in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 3F ofihiS Pease•f' -. -t" c e is-Agreement and Release, the 16. In the event ,.or;a t�dfarty fi�8 Countyand Lodge agree to work cooperatively to defend..thts Agreement and Release. In this regard, the County and Lodge shall each_seekto become parties to any such challenge proceeding if one or the other of them is not named as a party in the first instance. The County and Lodge shall each bear their own costs and attorney's fees in any such proceeding. 17. If any third party challenge to this Agreement and Release should ever be successful, after exhaustion of all appeals or other requests for review or reconsideration or federal permit conditions prevent Lodge from being able to develop the project consistent with the amended PUD Master Plan then the County agrees to return all money provided by Lodge under this Agreement and Release upon sixty(60)days written notice from Lodge and to allow Lodge to retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. In addition,if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain 6 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2351 required federal permits for the SDPs as referenced in this document and is therefore unable to build this project(exclusive of any federal permits or approvals for docks), Lodge likewise will be entitled to a refund of all money provided under this Agreement and Release within sixty (60) days of written notice from Lodge and Lodge shall retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. 18. Nothing in this Agreement and Release or the settlement documents shall be construed or interpreted to confer any right to docks or any particular number of docks. 19. The Agreement and Release shall be binding upon Lodge's and the County's predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, present and former employees, owners, present and former elected or appointed officials, insurers, p incif als,and representatives, who shall work together in good faith to accompli sti the intent.of this Agreement and Release. 20. This Agreement and'Rtelease shal0e)gpveiei by the laws of the State of 7. Florida. "!, e / ; 21. This Agreernenf-fid Release may beNatnrrnded,only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement7and.Release and.executed with the same formalities ,,ter as this Agreement and Release. This Agreement and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. 22. The County and Lodge acknowledge that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision that my exist in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party either based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous language or that the language in question was intended to favor one party or the other. 7 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2352 23. The Effective Date of this Agreement and Release shall be the date upon which the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, executes this document. 24. The County and Lodge acknowledge and assume the risk that additional, different or contrary facts to the facts which they believe exist may now exist or may be discovered after this Agreement and Release has been entered into, and they agree that any such additional, different or contrary facts shall in no way limit, waive, affect or alter this Agreement and Release. The County affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the.prc leei ais authorized by the PUD and this Agreement and Release or the enforceability t tis Agreement and.Release. Lodge affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that. would prohibit they\coni truction of the project as `ter\ \ !th `A eemertt an}i,R l or the enforceability of this authorized by the PUD end; �' , � � ; Agreement and Release. ` 3\•O''"?\ 25. In the eventreach of this Agreetnent and an&Release, either party to this Agreement and Release may enforce i%s terms e Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In this respect,theounty and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REMAINING SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 8 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST , .:,. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E.,OtocK,, CLERK COLLIER CO TY, F ORIDA . . 34 i i By:_Is ... By: _ It vidaill ii to atil : 0 -.uty lerk TOM ENNING,CHAIRM• 1 signature earth' ''. ' WIT; S E4S3',4 f Signed Name Name 42(cs,{040 7: keoe-y/iy, Print ' Name 7 .......40"/„x .6 . • .4' ."' i Si•-.,/-• Name , LODGE • :BOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC -1 BY 'if*O.,tC-, /A) jit2itiog 0 (' 14/ /4iiiITS: )ilkpAcarrc Printed Name \ /c------Th _.., r.... \ \ i.*--Th „,.. \ \ Ap. .ved as to form 1 11,77"..4N(/? ,,,, 7 \ .., , and e! ..0 .3' ii.) ' ‘ , -•ilif filb 111 ,,•`•*,,-, . ',''') J11 Je . A. Ki ow COU y AttO 1 y .....„--- 9 2/28/08 revision • t" A'•=,4#4,'''' in , 't4.24 il r 1 •:i,' -.. • !...*. .f.,.. 1 i i 0"zt W si.44,4,;44r4.o., ,44,44?9;101,„, A! It:•.; I— , i !Top 11 i 11,p,q,A . ,,. ./ r:4,• 2 k 1 s k , V •.)rlhil.litlq n' illailksbr I I ' 1 ] ! 111111 . i A sLi ,,,,,”;;?,. ,. , •k 1 : - Hi [ I . ilii i 40 I X" • !7'• 1 1 X 1 1 - 1" I, - .4 tt;1;4 ttttfi4 /Ai •!]''1414!:: !•4-kil 14. ; ; 4 ! IX,11.Ft i01 : If ir'lg•41 ''''91 41 -!!!!!,!t!:!i41:: i '''44;,4i,4, •'' -'444jt' .': l• X :•!1' ; '''-'1:1f:1 ! ! 1 ! 1:•'44.: 1 i ! I ---\r,, ,. . , .,',,],.,k - , 1p. 4 ; ,. lb . 1 1 1 , .4, '14• ., , 4 !,: ',1..:444.4'...„„.„. t 4: ,..,4 4 i Si i “4444;... 111.4 lilt",i0" 11.11.0. '•Q g rt - ! ' . I l'-f7:. ''''.r r , 1 P.; i''''! !'l'ig Iii,ii7IgAr‘• LN I ! 1 ! ! •,4 , ,• , 4 , X 4 h ; 4 '-'-' 1 V ' , 1 <1! 1 I, 1 , ! I i 1 i - : • , : h --/-4-1'--4: \•- it!:44Xi:' 4'i;H'ii"le."'1 $4141 4 ii Xi X! X;• ' 44 I ! i 1 I 144 , „ 1, ii, , I 9tl,iil9 l ,',,,,,-,.,,•,•- ----, ,-,!.. , 1 5;. ilNe."- 0 6 I 1',M Igit',2; a 4 '' <010, AID -, -7 , '''....,-•--.- \-I, 1.--4 : ,., ; 4 I ,.-- Tp.,4r"— q„,„,,,.i •,,, ...,,,. • i 1 L',---1,-.• ,.." ,,,,,, g„, p, s+4 ‘‘);-„.1,:14 Ii-,w117.-,0 H.: 1 • :,,,,,„; i _ ,,,,,,- ••443 _...4___. 17:',:11:1 ,-;,5 ,. 9 'S- f4 , ri--- • .- t-F•4\.,-;,:fi 1•: I— st 1-1- I ., -r-,, . q, , ',---., ,i7.' _,) - N't-,.' ',P,'-'•-, E. cf) z , - • - - ' I. , ,,-,v,Nitr", ', sJ (1.>"A.' te. Lu 0 9'4 1 _1,"1r li li,WS„,;\,--In, '."--). k?: k 1411: 1=' kl• ..e; Me-?- ••••,,0 1 . 2 0 , / 1 I c A h,c,1>' — Nt\N,,, '',4%., '' • — ,....:- ,...., 0 I 0, E/i ,- , ,.. -!••;', - '-,,',-, :',-,,,;---- ; 114 12111%. "*-4 L.,...,, ct)17Z1 2 1 ,' ,TV 2 °6 0 1 (-7,•-• '1 IL I.. .44 , 4%5 ,...., < ii ,,--1 r,. IIR;1C -2 CL 06 1'l ) 1 I I 4 .::,-. P--,-'• , ••••.. . (/) . Oa (f) %10......: 4.1 4-1 0 4044•41 :ITIFi C_) LIJ (J) II 9 -+ {ill' "z7 1 ,, •1 ,. i'' ,7:; ' 'i', -4' ',," ',' "," ' `,,, „ , „, , , .„„ , A J*.si I r'ilil W0i ''' 'iii -' '' :.-; '' r'• 'i'‘' ''''' '''. ''''', 0 i i 1441 Ci '8 6 9 K1 14, ,,. 111 , 1111 1 wit iiiil ,•,•,34,,„1 ., , ,-,.1-.t.k t. ',..4.4,•,4. 0.., ,-,•-q- Selk , ,R,e-V.:Vc ' ,,,.,1.,,„ -, .i. `.:t'.,1 CO ', Z \.........(•,) 1 1 I io I i f-I41 1 4+i I IP-I 4100r,A ,!"•k;'' 't::;l'',;,'I ,,,Z''',, ';,,,r1V,,,,'';%`.t !I il'"?:.: :;:''''- F--.8 ,_,,.. 0. z0.9-A 1 1 , 1 1 1 I III A601,,- ' 404.W4i AKZ2444 th" '2-• ii I I II th . ,,.44 to 4 •.0;,•;:rit 4. ... t i.. 5k'Li 4;4.444.94 i i;'; t4;1;4'; XXitlf.44W 4' 1 144 - XX • :,,,e4.„,t,i1,,:::,-,t n . 40000.1W4143t: !," ;;; 'i'li 4"1';31.0:1P- le&A. h'4k; ":4:041i. :',§ 1 ;0 :10ViN"Milr'n 0;I:!-ItegliNtAi;P: " % ','ii',"ki iVt"Fali .4 4,t 1 lqt h?eXIXF',100,1/3,11 AS"a'F"t hK",t' '14 i 2 11 l'OE'Wl""hieN' V '; itkg14P4.12g;IP-511 ":.I12 0:42t-i l''' ,022- im,211.1 2' . ! ig -T-'12,12,2111 1112 Ir ,'f $41-g.i 4.241"" 1-, "V1 '2!z-ii122r! i ,11 4 2i2Id?$*,1%1 ;' ,1,‘1411!ii!,W111 1 i19$;'70iii:-:011.1! il. Nil P11 it,-P;iY4131,"Tii411 ilbg/.4 !',Ikirigill;;; i i Pd lig01/1: Ng il,11,04-iriiii: iii NI , .. ;4!41;tf'4,01PiXti 'XiX4i444441 X:XF";:i? .X. 4; ti4ei 19 1999999 !, 11 . la -ii4P4644:41; t;';!X 1 '*1 I'X441 4 4'ilaX; 4P;4.!;;4440 !04,;;A ;4 X ; XMliTX;4P44;;2 4 .-4!!X4;411141!1:;;NiX; , 4 A X 44,14041XX4XXItii;; tO 1 Ilb.iPlot;Iiim,1! .t1A:it,4 :!=:5/Vgliqt': 4 i:t.e':gr Init:Oi4i! A': 9 III ':tAly-').4,-: :i,:, 'io' '0 ttliir";-•..'4:414,41“‘4 :,-,,,i111:fil Artot41.t:y4-i;;41i2,:: 931 ii‘14:6:021:43K 11,0:i:04i4::t :il 0,, i-4.0 46-,14-iklsk,t.i.vtittli i.e. p;,a,,, Wirloi :'; 0! ii:1-'0,0„fi.wilt w g 0 i-Px-PtiiI4II'l t-,A 011 W' ii:hili4V:1,MlilikW 151;,' .4 4C1041.: a 0 i,V .i!gi5:0,tt, ''.,,',:rf it!.•1!,10,24P(^410k: '.'," ',g;01 e.1,,;L"" ,1;4017,V,:ii.j.,0 d %,;,OL,,H”ftwd oitil, I0t4iO4.04gV4alliN/Iintr:449;;Iiq444'40 ""itt41..0.41h• i4"114!";; " ;a': X,,;;;14:4• itiiiittItt4;41 At,kli$.3 i tihn Vitli It.Rad i ..----....* , s a "." ,'klkld1 kn 'ate ab a4 AVM aM1 3SZ�„�tl'SBI?4 01'OZ6[I'9t'9 a° S IAL9'!IY OS MO 1.4'9IW d•AVO Y37YX -- a 7awnu� ,,,,ns 0..Itsw0.4W1 .,ao- iwan pp fg[cw ,t 000I-L99-f(f asp `F CO x+sras-asx^ ri r �R�}, aa' ZOnt NY YaNW n� n dno(�u„)$u.Nnsuo� F.Y. 0a .oer A. .,fa, ,„,,,„,,,,e., � 7 15 04.40706Ke,eec ..600. b�2Ua „ xw; a n%wow Ua79Y/ Po 1 i `:u iw, 1z n. ¢ eM Z 1 }Yx4 -, Y - �j S z '-----:-: oY r ei^ Fyy �`t y:i;,i4! & N1 i A S.reV aYYr�S6 m F sa..1 gi ( x z El E fl a, x k l g H x t g $ kg1. ? , c1 t f is£ e et k p "a it Ei$ t " ! l gI ItI ii gl It tt i pp 'gpq 'y8d z[a�i� g ; ge 4 6t t i9 t2 E; ` 9 al144. wl 4a 10 1 p , h!• II 5s Y sx 1 1/t " t i sth 000 ,a It I11-1aillf t x ex 1 4 gy xEt E , ' t°4ily3 P IVIII�y �. y t� Al!'k � g ! I�.t 1 :� � {gyp 51 1� ! & �. § a t o @E tt b pi d ip its ti:It s ; t ,t € �£:�# t;� ti ; ! !a 3 a a, S 0 s i p 1 d ! Ui 11 I F a t 1 iss « I #; uu • - -La onsnd) (ArM �o - I l06AVA 110 3N?!0 'A -- _ ' ---'�- �� -- -- .'" _ - h -ter- =_'�' .�.*-._ ^ -y ,( III- i8� Il"i- _�� _ . YY 4I111 I a -1 I- �r-- ' ' 1 u �Z ,„0. � J 7� 4_ ''' ' ' ' ' '4-"',.e. 4::v i_ 1 t i , 1 lg 5-1!, '''-—}' ,..'i ^est d/ � i�, i ` pq� ham' -- 4: Y/ !J .t } awe/isro oto , -t. ' d4, „e,,,.%6 , d&a r� — / \ yy V� • t -..m... t fix, \ , i lL i' 1 r ti i. A ss ter ' K �'vl” �p h I i I . nit - y v 4✓',0,1 • . ,.• ' A v,- '� E ' ('� ,Q p / y g1 yg qg y/y'a'� J #p ' 1.. . :'a,Oma`..—•, \\ / d.. c` si „/-"aZB ' "'o. ' �� `g, x VA' 1`\ ,'�°2`1.7�a �, ,,.. " ,,,,_: 14111r " @@.. f,.g,.,t,,,A."::::::".$1.4,,../t. ,,A. r '°� tip xx �\ l , v- "t au_ I''� w t,' . a $ ,,y' 3 : : .. , ,, ,, . , , , , , 71 \\ ,.��}&55 �h,. 3x1 ' �+., a.- '— . : t A� - art,tg g o '' \ '� yl_.� . a • • , 'SkEl 1 /ie. :; , - 'i. EC:VP' 'f',' Z.,'.', ,'.',','.'•,4.'•',.'•' V'.'• , - ' .'''''..-----;t A) • •.•.•.•.'.')'.'.')' III ‘,,,,,,-,k, �,A� , ' : i r cc,,,-,:tit, ,l i S w\ 1 ,, e �\ tl , .' ,'ts ,cam' t? '• • \\\ a gas 2t '� ' ex tlg ' � l ll ;�� 'l< ,, ' - !< .....,-;-,;(r., L>:a I l 11' ., vv .' • • 4%, 'E ' r' lx, ll I1'' I 1� .,. 11':1:. .1`,-.\.„ 1 1:. . < ,� .it` l Y ;l l l l' 1‹.',',?' I I I l l l l�� ,`\ • (.ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REQUEST Appellants are requesting that the Collier County Board of Commissioners reverse the: 1. administrative reduction in building separation and 2. administrative increase in building widths and 3. administrative approval of additional dwelling units and 4. administrative increase in overall building height all of which are described in further detail in the narrative below, and were made without a public hearing, and without providing a procedural due process noticed opportunity for adversely affected third parties, including Appellants and the public,to be heard. Appellants further request the Collier County Board of Commissioners mandate compliance with the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release, signed on June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts the following day, which references the 3 SDPs approved before, or concurrent with, recording of the Settlement Agreement and referenced in the Settlement Agreement, paragraph 3 (Exhibit 19) and require that any significant changes to the PUD and the SDPs approved in conjunction with said Settlement Agreement be approved by the BCC and require a supermajority vote of the BCC pursuant to the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release. II. Narrative Describing the Request and Legal Basis for Appeal The Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement, PUD, the Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission, and three SDPs reviewed and approved by staff, were approved by the Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as "BCC") on April 22, 2008. (Exhibit 7).This action was taken as part of the Summary Agenda. The BCC approved all documents as presented without objection from the County Attorney, County Manager, county staff, the petitioner, and the petitioner's agent or citizens.The Settlement Agreement, signed on June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts the following day, is a legally binding document in which paragraph 21 unambiguously relates that any changes must be "executed with the same formalities" specified in this Agreement. (Exhibit 19) Thus, changes must be approved by a supermajority of the BCC. Even apart from the Settlement Agreement, the Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000, contains a Development Standards table (Exhibit 1 p 2375) with the formula for determining "distance between principal structures" (0.5 SBH *fn3) The formula 0.5 SBH means that the distance between buildings should be one-half the sum of the buildings' height (200' + 200' = 400' divided by 2 = 200'). Therefore, the distance between two buildings 200' in height should be at least 200'.The Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000 does contains a *footnote 3: "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." Footnote 3 should not be applied to allow unreasonable, significant major reductions or increases without first going to the BOCC. Footnote 3 administrative reductions should only be applied reasonably to minor or insignificant reductions unless these changes are brought back to the BOCC and procedural due process is afforded to affected third parties and citizens. Administrative staff reductions should not have been used to drastically and significantly reduce setback distances between buildings to nearly half the required setback, or to increase the width of buildings 50' wider than shown in the PUD. The setback were nearly halved without a public hearing and opportunity for public comment on significant changes to building separation distances without procedural due process notice and a right to be heard in a BOCC public hearing. The county staff does not have the requisite authority to make modifications to the SDPs utilizing administrative. Despite this fact, the following changes to Cocohatchee Bay aka Kalea Bay have already been implemented in phase 1 and have been approved by staff for phases II-VI: -- Building Separations: Building separations are less than code minimums of 1/2 the sum of the building heights, and less than the already reduced and adjusted separations (as per PUD footnote #3, Exhibit 7A) shown on the SDPs attached to the PUD and Settlement Agreement.Those separations are as follows: building 1 to 2, 153 feet; building 2 to 3, 126 feet; building 3 to 4, 127 feet; building 4 to 5, 341 feet. (Exhibit 7A). Building 1 is now nearly completed and is 50 feet wider than shown on the BCC approved SDPs. The apparent intent is to also make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building to the plan. Increasing the width of these buildings would further exacerbate the building separation issue and result in them being just 109 feet, 165 feet, 100 feet and 100 feet apart. Staff interpretation that there is no limit to an administrative reduction building separations because of clauses such as 'footnote #3', is not a credible interpretation, reducing the language to an absurdity. Additionally, staff cannot ignore the fact that the CCPC memo was included on the Summary Agenda and was approved by The Board on April 22, 2008. (Exhibit 7C). To quote from the CCPC review that was accepted and approved by Board action, "However, as a result of language in the PUD, the CCPC recommended reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. As an alternative to the reduction in separation, greater distances could be provided by moving alternating towers closer to Vanderbilt Drive." (Exhibit 7C). Collier staff members unilaterally, and without authority, permitted significant major modifications without noticing a public hearing by the BCC. In the Memorandum (Exhibit 33) attached to Amendment SDPA PL20160002242, in the Amendment Approval Notification, staff cited several examples of alleged historical application of administrative reduction. Only one of the citations was a high-rise and that was for a side set- back which is not a building separation issue. In Brandon Sancho's response to our request for public records (Exhibit 25) showing all instances in Collier County in which staff allowed administrative reduction of the required minimum separation between skewed buildings having a common architectural theme (Exhibit 26), "The footnote in question is related to the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD). The only project that has utilized this specific footnote is Kinsale Condominiums Phases II-VI, SDP-2004-AR-5284." Kinsale is i r Cocohatchee Bay as indicated later in his response. Therefore, there are no past projects analogous to the Kalea Bay project. --Width of Buildings: Building 1 is nearly completed and is 50 feet wider than shown on the BCC approved SDPs. The apparent intent is to also make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building to the plan. Increasing the width of these buildings would further exacerbate the building separation issue and result in them being just 109 feet, 165 feet, 100 feet and 100 feet apart. --Guest Suites: The developer has added twelve (12) guest suites as accessory units. The PUD lists guest suites and cabanas as permitted uses and they are to be counted as part of the total number of residential units-- 590. Four 20 story buildings, each with 120 units, equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Adding twelve guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So, as of this date, and without bringing the issue to the BCC for a public hearing and without the approval by a BCC supermajority required by the Settlement Agreement, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of units specified. -- Height: Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top structures such as the community meeting room and fitness center. According to the PUD, "building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the upper-most finished ceiling elevation of the roof structure."The elevated pool adds to the building height as well.Also, County Land Development Code staff and Zoning & Land Development staff issued an official clarification on the issue of roof-top accessory structures: SC 2004-05. "...the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased height, and refers to unenclosed, unroofed, and non-air-conditioned space for recreation use." (Exhibit 36). A housing unit (a habitable structure) has been added to the upper garage level, conflicting further with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. Numerous attempts to attain an explanation for such conduct have fallen on deaf ears. These include attempts such as: asking questions to staff (Exhibit 15,26), speaking with our District 2 Commissioner (Time line Feb 24, 2017), and addressing each of the Commissioners (Time line: Feb 22, 2017, Feb 27, 2017, March 20, 2017) to share our concerns. (Exhibits 15-22) We have attended BCC meetings (April 18, 2017-Exhibit 27), sent letters to the newspaper (Exhibit 8, 8A), and emailed or visited staff(Exhibit 22A), but to no avail. These attempts took place both before and after construction of building one. In fact, appellants were forced to engage counsel [ Ralf Brookes] in early 2015. Appellants discovered that plans existing at the County are inconsistent with those submitted to South Florida Water Management District -- preventing any factual analysis to be conducted. (Exhibit 13A) On March 24, 2015, the developer attempted to breach the Agreement by adding 62 housing units to the eastern parcel (Exhibits 9, 10, 11). At that time, the Collier County Commissioners denied this attempt and agreed not to open or amend said Settlement Agreement. Residents in North Naples thought that the Settlement Agreement and PUD would protect the Cocohatchee Bay area as this Agreement promised "forever" and "in perpetuity." However, that has not proven to be true. Counsel for the appellants sent a letter to Collier County via the County Attorney (Exhibit 16) in which he stated our objections to non-compliance with the Settlement Agreement and PUD. Objections included: unreasonable building separations, the means by which those were determined, the lack of public hearing and the allowance of habitable space in the upper garage level. County Commissioners did not receive a copy, hence visits to each. If Kalea Bay were to be built as currently proposed, it would not be compatible with the neighborhood. (Exhibit 38) Nowhere else in this area are there high-rises where the distances between buildings have this degree of unreasonable separation. Ill. Relief Sought 1. ISSUE 1 NO PUBLIC HEARING: County staff has allowed changes to the SDPs approved in conjunction with the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement without a public hearing. As explained in the "Narrative Describing This Request," staff made significant changes that far exceeded minor adjustments, were not reasonable adjustments, and will have an observable negative impact on our community forever. RELIEF SOUGHT: The Collier County Board of Commissioners reject the significant adverse and unreasonable changes made by staff to the original SDPs. In addition, we request that the Collier County Board of Commissioners upholds the Settlement Agreement and requires that any changes to SDPs should be reviewed by staff and then submitted to the BCC for a public hearing. 2. ISSUE 2 BUILDING SEPARATION: The Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000, contains a Development Standards table (Exhibit 1 p 2375) with the formula for determining "distance between principal structures" (0.5 SBH *fn3) referencing a *footnote 3: "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." The formula 0.5 SBH means that the distance between buildings should be one-half the sum of the buildings' height (200' + 200' = 400' divided by 2 = 200'). Therefore, the distance between two buildings 200' in height should be 200'. Footnote 3 should be applied reasonably, and should not be used to drastically and significantly reduce setbacks, especially when buildings were made 50' wider than shown in the PUD. (See Issue 3 below). Taken to the extreme, footnote 3 should not be used to eliminate the requirements for building separation with no limit to the amount of administrative reduction. Typically, administrative reductions might involve a few feet or small percent but not drastic, significant reductions that will have an observable negative impact on our community forever. The staffs' unlimited interpretation of footnote 3 allowed Kalea Bay building separations to be reduced from the 200' required by code to 153', 126', 127' between buildings and reduced the setback from the lake to 431'. We have also highlighted a portion of a quote from the "CCPC SUMMARY OF COCOHATCHEE BERT HARRIS REVIEW" (Exhibit 7C) which is part of the Executive Summary dated April 22, 2008. It states, "However, as a result of the language in the PUD, the CCPC recommended that reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement Agreement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC." If you allow the widths of buildings 2-5 to be increased 50 feet(our 3'ISSUE), building separations will be "less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC." RELIEF SOUGHT: We ask the Board of County Commissioners to enforce the building separation formula and require the 200' separation between buildings. For the future of our community, we request that limits be in place for the amount or degree of administrative reductions that can be made by County staff. While a 5 % reduction might be reasonable, a 50% reduction to the SDPs approved with the Settlement Agreement and PUD is not reasonable! 3. ISSUE 3 BUILDING WIDTHS: County staff administratively approved an increase in width from 260' to 310' for Kalea Bay Building 1. Apparently, the intent is to make Buildings 2-5 at least 50' wider as well, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building. Making the buildings wider exacerbates the already reduced and adjusted building separations. If buildings 2-5 are allowed to become 50' wider, the towers would be just 109; 165'100'and 100'apart —in most cases half the distance they should be. These buildings will appear to be a wall of concrete with very limited light, air flow and view between them. Depictions drawn to scale (Exhibit 37) illustrate that it would truly create a "condo-canyon" on the landscape along with the deep, uninterrupted shadows for drivers, pedestrians, and bikers. It would certainly detract from the sense of place in our community. The expansion of building widths, combined with the unreasonable administrative adjustment to building separations, gives Kalea Bay a look that is not compatible with our neighborhood. RELIEF SOUGHT: Retain the building widths approved in the PUD. Do not allow buildings 2-5 to be increased in width from 260' to 310'. This does not comply with the SDPs approved with the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 4. ISSUE 4 GUEST SUITES: The developer has added 12 guest suites as accessory units. The PUD lists guest suites under "Uses Permitted" as a "Principal Use" along with multi-family dwellings. Four 20 story buildings, each with 120 units, equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Adding twelve (12) guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So, as of this date, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of dwelling units specified. RELIEF SOUGHT: Require that guest suites be counted as part of the total number of residential units, a maximum total of 590. 5. ISSUE 5 BUILDING HEIGHT: Four (4) of the Kalea Bay towers are limited to 20 stories or a maximum of 200' in height and the fifth building is limited to 17 stories or a maximum of 175' in height. Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top features such as the community meeting room and fitness center which would violate these height limits. See Kalea Bay's website. RELIEF SOUGHT: Do not allow the Applicant to add an additional story to each building by enclosing the fitness center and community meeting room. Enforce the maximum height of each of the buildings as shown on the SDPs per the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 6. ISSUE 6 GARAGE DWELLING UNIT: A housing unit (habitable structure) has been added to the upper garage level which further conflicts with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. It also appears that this housing unit will not be counted as part of the density. RELIEF SOUGHT: Remove the dwelling unit from the upper level of the garage or count that garage level with the habitable floors. Furthermore, if the unit is allowed, it must be counted as part of the 590- maximum density per the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 7. ISSUE 7 RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: Paragraph eight of the Settlement Agreement states that one-fifth of the golf course parcel, east of Vanderbilt Drive, is to be placed into RECORDED Restrictive Covenants before or at the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each Kalea Bay building. Building 1 should be getting its Certificate of Occupancy in 2017. No Restrictive Covenant has been recorded. When the Restrictive Covenant is issued, it should be reviewed by the County Attorney prior to its recording. REQUEST: Monitor and be aware of this rapidly approaching requirement contained in the Settlement Agreement. That land was purposed to provide green space and additional buffering for adjacent communities and one-fifth of the golf course parcel, east of Vanderbilt Drive must be placed into a RECORDED Restrictive Covenant before or at the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each Kalea Bay building. 8. ISSUE 8 INVASIVE CONTROL: Glen Eden on the Lakes, for example, has been paying to have invasives removed from its 67.5' buffer(preserve) with the Cocohatchee Bay golf course for at least 15 years. However, the developer had not done maintenance within his 100' adjoining native vegetation buffer until 2016. At that point, the invasives had taken over to such a degree that the removal of invasives resulted in nearly total destruction of the vegetation buffer. REQUEST: Replant buffer with native trees and maintain vegetation buffer (preserve area) now that the invasive trees have finally been removed. We also request that compliance with county regulations regarding maintenance of preserves and removal of invasive species be monitored. 9. ISSUE 9 10 FOOT PATHWAY ON WEST SIDE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE: Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement requires a 10-foot pathway be constructed on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. It states that "This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project." In 2016, the County dug up the old walkway west of Vanderbilt Drive to install new water pipes. Then, the County installed a new walkway west of Vanderbilt Drive. In some places, it is 6 feet wide; in some places, it is 8 feet wide; in some places, it is 9 feet wide. In some places, it is black asphalt and in other places it looks like cement sidewalk. It is hodge-podge in appearance and is definitely not a "10-foot pathway". We observed the County doing all the work on this walkway, but we do not know if it was built by or with Lodge funds. RELIEF SOUGHT: Require Lodge to pay for and install a complete 10- foot pathway on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive as per terms in the Settlement Agreement. btu: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 RIC PaB E26.00 CLERK TO TBE BOARD RECORDED in the OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COMM?!, PL COPIES 27.00 IR{ROFFICB 4?H FLOOR 06110/2008 it I0:46AH DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK IIT 7240 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this day of?c,t,e1 , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle and WHEREAS, the PUD}n ucstion is also sorneti s� eferred to as the Cocohatchee I ,� Bay PUD; and `-'' \ 4 77 .u` _-- t WHEREAS, Lodge filed ,* 4 p i n of 4' o`: �. 1 T entieth Judicial Circuit in atta k-the County i concerning the proposed and for Collier County, Fltqicla` r , amendment to the PUD's Baltlti` agle Management lain,�tha case being styled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier Cotyi tfase unNa..05,.967-C4, d WHEREAS, on or around May 1, 2006, Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Harris Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4)(c) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. 1 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2346 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and Release, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound,Lodge and the County mutually agree to the following: 1. The County and Lodge agree to adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as"Whereas clauses"by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. The settlement documents will consist of the original PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 (Exhibit 1), the amended PUD (Exhibit 2), the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan for the amended PUD (attached as Exhibit "B" to the amended PUD), a phasing diagram entitled "Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Exhibit"X3-3 .,-and a Pathway Depiction (Exhibit 4). This Agreement and Release , sly c states the acepjrable deviations in development / standards from the original PUD.t A art expres term in'his`Agreement and Release,the original PUD will control. ( (rIsN(h) )71)) W\ 3. The settletrte ' shall be---centi rge it upon- three site development plans ("SDPs") that Lodge has subMilted being approved%Gy the=,dainty, in accordance with the 1—;,,\,. / rules and regulations of the Cou nt a`welLas the;de elopment standards set forth in the k. original PUD and as may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR5283 and AR5284. 4. The County will expedite the review of these three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. The existing environmental impact statement ("EIS") does not need to be amended unless the SDPs are revised to increase wetland impact beyond the impact currently permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five(5%)percent. 5. Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential 2 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2347 condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable workforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment. 6. Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, Lodge shall contribute the sum of$3 million to the County to fund Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements. No impact fee credits shall be given for payment of this sum. Lodge recognizes that the County may request additional contributions up to the proposed road impact fees due for 59,0- ellikig;traits to assist the County in funding the � .; construction of the Vanderbilt Dnvei$tidge enhancements to such additional contributions shall be required, however, until tl ...County'provides evidence,that all parties have spent $5,500,000.00 on the Van erbili1Jrhe I ri g en ance=tn Any such sums paid over the initial $3 million shall re4e ve '`gidiirrPact ± e redits ~""Istp ig in this Agreement and Release, however, is intended nor shall it restnct°`ii any.w the County's ability under \\ . applicable laws,ordinances or ru7ess.O reel ertt. 50%)of all transportation impact fees upon approval of the SDPs. These funds"shall be refunded to Lodge should Lodge be permanently prevented from commencing construction based upon actions by any governmental entity or any third party. County shall be entitled to retain these funds without any need for reimbursement upon the earlier of(1) Lodge's commencement of construction of the first tower, or(2) the exhaustion of time to file any third party challenge with respect to any matter concerned by this Agreement and the attachments hereto. 7. Lodge and the County agree that the Cocohatchee Bay PUD shall be exempted from the County's PUD sunsetting provisions within the LDC until the Effective 3 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth(1/5) of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or,golf2olifSe,pss is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reason, then all of the 1'including withont)iin itation the entire golf course ""`""^`15 \ \ development area, except for those t_oits-allowcdt for the,two (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green open space aid be ltm'ttedA ► Eiewe,tnity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the artiended- t D-'Preserve .arcel `Any`'e isions to these restrictive covenants will require a supetnirrity vote of the BOird_Oftostinty Commissioners. f 9. To fully satisfy itsx&li to constr ,sidewalks along adjacent off-site public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway`ten(10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006) in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2349 (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in Building Height, as defined in Paragraph 3.5 entitled "Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the amended PUD,and Footnote 2 thereto. 11. The maximum number of dwelling units to be constructed by Lodge shall not exceed 590 units. Of these,a maximum of 590 units may be multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However,two (2)units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as set forth in Section 4.4 in the amended PUD, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 12. What has been referred.to as jhe R 1:and R-2 Parcels shall be replaced by a single R parcel as set forth in�t1 a re)ised PUD Master PI3,attached to the amended PUD. The development standardstfor the ..Parcel are as:set forth,\in "fable 11 of Paragraph 3.5 of the amended PUD(except las n ay,be cptesslyt m difed*idle Agreement and Release). 13. If there are'additional changes for Batt-Elk-Management Plan required by federal or state agencies,nx3 ft rther County PUVanien iment process shall be required. The County acknowledges that the ended.Bald€agle Management Plan is in compliance with the County regulations. Lodge shall be rexempt from any County regulations that may be adopted in the future applicable to the Bald Eagle and the County shall defer to the state and federal regulatory permitting process relating to the Bald Eagle Management Plan and issues related thereto. Lodge, however, shall be required to notify the County of any such changes required by state or federal agencies, which will then require an administrative change by the County to any of the previously approved SDPs under review or that have been approved by the County. Any change to the construction sequencing shall be considered an insubstantial change to the SDP. 14. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit 2. 5 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2350 15. Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees, insurers, sureties, agents, attorneys, and representatives of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord.No. 2000-88, the related Bald Eagle Management Plan or any amendment or proposed amendment to the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 or the Bald Eagle Management Plan through the date this Agreement and Release are approved and authorized by the Board for the Chairman's signature in-eluding without limitation all Bert Harris Act claims and the claim asserted in Case No. 05-967-CA,.., This release shall be immediately effectiveup on the Count 's aPP` rovai of the 3--SLWs in `accordance with the terms and Y conditions set forth in paragraph 3e athis'Agreetri4ntof 01lease. 16. In the event of a'third party cl alfenge 'ftr is k$reement and Release, the County and Lodge agree tosWork,cooperatively to defendithts Agreement and Release. In this regard, the County and Lodge shall-each..-seek to become parties to any such challenge proceeding if one or the other of them is not named as a party in the first instance. The County and Lodge shall each bear their own costs and attorney's fees in any such proceeding. 17. If any third party challenge to this Agreement and Release should ever be successful, after exhaustion of all appeals or other requests for review or reconsideration or federal permit conditions prevent Lodge from being able to develop the project consistent with the amended PUD Master Plan then the County agrees to return all money provided by Lodge under this Agreement and Release upon sixty(60)days written notice from Lodge and to allow Lodge to retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. In addition,if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain 6 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2351 required federal permits for the SDPs as referenced in this document and is therefore unable to build this project(exclusive of any federal permits or approvals for docks), Lodge likewise will be entitled to a refund of all money provided under this Agreement and Release within sixty (60) days of written notice from Lodge and Lodge shall retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. 18. Nothing in this Agreement and Release or the settlement documents shall be construed or interpreted to confer any right to docks or any particular number of docks. 19. The Agreement and Release shall be binding upon Lodge's and the County's predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, present-and former employees, owners, present and former elected or appointed officials, insurers, principal's,and representatives, who shall work together in good faith to accomplish the intent_of this Agreement and Release. 20. This Agreement'and 1pleiase shal , egyve by the laws of the State of i 4 f, t Florida. _ , 21. This Agreemen d Release may be vern'nde .'ionly by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement.;and..Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release. This Agreement and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. 22. The County and Lodge acknowledge that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision that my exist in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party either based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous language or that the language in question was intended to favor one party or the other. 7 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2352 23. The Effective Date of this Agreement and Release shall be the date upon which the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, executes this document. 24. The County and Lodge acknowledge and assume the risk that additional, different or contrary facts to the facts which they believe exist may now exist or may be discovered after this Agreement and Release has been entered into, and they agree that any such additional, different or contrary facts shall in no way limit, waive, affect or alter this Agreement and Release. The County affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the.pra}eci as authorized by the PUD and this Agreement and Release or the enforceability/ is Agreement and Release_ Lodge affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts lhat.rwOuld'°prohibit the=,construction of the project as " th' t 1 �.r or the enforceability of this authorized by the PUD and,zhi iii .' ' m Agreement and Release. Y . =`F \ Vii,, ,I f 25. In the event of ,breach of this Agr edniezit'at ,Release, either party to this Agreement and Release may enforee its-terms.in the,Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County,Florida. In this respect, the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REMAINING SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 8 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST:;: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGIfr E,CROCK,CLERK COLLIER CO TY, F ORIDA ii i • By: ,.. AI�r"~� BY: — SII vgakilll A = 'w e Q Ch$ ; . .uty lerk TOM ENNING,CHAIRM' I signature cal li '`, WI 1SES; / 141 .. k / � Signed Name "V(C•itiV046 7: I;e'ae,eriW ck Print°• Name / i eXe..,,,...,...,,..1/4 ....AAA, .4-_ • A ' ' Si;• 1• Name ,,..- , , .QDGE:� BOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC ja2/inn 0 (7. %d//‘: --- ITS: lAkorkw-tc Printed Name 1 Ap. ovei11 o form il and e! it - ( C 0%'\.:7 :\ -...4, i 1,,..:),/1 Je ' A. K1 T ow ' E 49 Cou y Atto I y 1-,---------:---,- ,/, 9 2/28/08 revision Building Separation LDC Separation Distance Based on Height. BH x r i Minimum Distance Between Buildings LDC Table 2. Building Dimensions Standards BH=Building Height ( BH + BH ) * 0.5 = BH hdaziasia Bldg Heightl 20 wanes*en ttnattirn rrt 53 i Neigh*of 200 feet *2 t Dlstamee Betimes Principal&Iraci+eres I 0.5 SUFI •3 t 1111 not leu that 15 feet J thew As hila. d .r.) I�` 1800 5F '; 1 1200 SF t,,,..,,i, I r, 4 .. \... `, ,.'N,L---- ___ . 3_, 4 fill; (Beiltling ).&Wm&be$tI Stell be the vertical disci=tnessumd from the first luhitable finished floor cievatian to the epperinost finished cellos elevation cf the strKRacr, mut csain of Baddm Heigt*)c Cashioed kriabt of nw adjacent hr keinpa for the purposes of itetcnisitting ashlar&fir. ``. All distances are in deer rakes settetwise noted. - t •I Fat yam shall be raeaswed as follows: A_ U the parsd k served by a public right.of•wiy,setback is measured Nisi the edjaoent°slit-ofway line. B. If the penal k served by a Mom talcs,setback is measured from the hack d nub(if embed)or edge of prvMtuR(it Mt etittad). BrutAirg height for the meth propetty her I4pceni to Arbor Mow est the"Rl"tract shell bei s unties far a raruiimnum hest of 350 Inst. *3 Whom buildings with a=ounce nrettiosoutal doom alesbswad Ofonkt franc one ar,other...d wails en ace penileto one aaottbet,the sesbodes tea be sdlmitsttuadve1y reduced. J Distance Between Principal Structures dolpillik Distance Between Principal Structures Reduced Reduced Distance Between Principal Structures Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced. "It has been staff's interpretation for decades that the reduction in building separation can be reduced from 200 feet and that reduction is not limited." Executive Summary page 4 of 8 "During the CCPC hearings, when asked how much of a reduction could be administratively approved with the existing language of footnote 3, planning staff replied, "..the basic question is, is the reduction in setbacks or separation of structures limited by the PUD document?And the answer is no, the separation is unlimited. I can't see any grounds in there for intent to reduce it a certain amount, or it would have been specified...There simply is nothing that limits the amount of reduction." (Page 55 of CCPC January 11, 2008 Public Hearing, Attachment "E"). " Executive Summary page 4 of 8 The table below identifies the present and historical application of the building setback reduction. Summary of Common Architectural Theme(CAT)Building Separation Setback Reductions Development Setback Required Setback Approved(utilizing Percent Reduction CAT) Water Park Place @ Pelican (1/2 Bldg Height) 100 feet 25 feet 75% Bay Sand Pointe @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Isle Verde @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Villa Cantana @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Vizcaya @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Bouganillas Condo @ Lago Front:35 feet Side:25'Rear:35 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 42%40%57%60% Verde feet Bldg Sep:25' Cordoba @ Lely Resort Front:20 feet Side: 10 feet Bldg 6.4 feet 3.1 feet 5.3 feet 68%69%47% Sep: 10 feet Kalea Bay @ Cocohatchee (1/2 the sum of Bldg 100 feet 50% Bay PUD Heights) 200 feet Executive Summary page 6 of 8 Correctior 7; Location of bldos. Status: Forward Dote Status Changed: 12, :6,.:1C1E Commons: Please vovide *e location ars arraroerienl of eat procrosed buildinus (invoding exis:ing buildings that are to rerriri . 5.11J ru 2 showc e skewed rrore, sc as to no: aooear to be parallel with ELi :f IL is b remain ahgrec zscilding 1, ther t n meet tic setback stel.1 sliec ir the -LI: M ?ItiitIr r . N .,gip 'low lig ap . . - Building Width Kalea Bay Comparison between the Settlement SDP and 2nd Phase SDP Building Widths and Building Separations Settlement SDP 2nd Phase SDP variance Building 1 width 260 310 50 separation 153 109 -44 Building 2 width 260 310 50 separation 126 165 39 Building 3 width 260 310 50 separation 127 100 -27 Building 4 width 260 310 50 separation 341 106 -235 Building 5 width 260 310 50 1,300 747 1,550 480 250 -267 63.5% 36.5% 76.4% 23.6% 19.2% -35.7% 2,047 2,030 • � 9, 4� a # s,i: s,r J a ' O�LF P14146° , ii'P Y x .; r Y , :0 , ��, `� \\r'� l` 1 :e41, Iii 1, ,� v�_(.'a��# t�" r v. Ly_114 ;w# P w "' „'IILL ti `s Iti I, off, , It 4''''7 .' • n . 0 5s . : ,)V-,..:':'ea< .ra \ t ', ;' '' \iitoo -IT 1.‘, , i ::2 4 :.., I , ,,, ` •, .y ,f: ..tea ::-)\ 11...01/4. ;, - ,,. ( V I fil''r''':.1'.'. 4:'.•.•:•411•.•: ':•:•.',:'.::::,:.V..,ii;:?;...;',.ii.. ...,.....4%.,1: , e /.. - -; ',),--;_-_, .-,...::' \, il,,, 0. ., ) , ,,.. , , , ., , yr...5 a 4'7'4 :"{ • • ,( t •' . 4 'ur,rtG / 1 " ` — " ''., Settlement gib. , I h � 7, —J- ¢ (Ir - -� u !.*� . 3x4 _ ..... .-,-.01.:7-..""( „..,Tt,n' " *-- ---*-1''''..r4 .:E'' ��h • .e "t ,K ` f a ` f 1 1 =j ., — }11. "MI z s �i• h 41 diori 1 ....-' ,. - - - r • is + \'V r U �,: t Current Building Height Maximum Building Height Maximum Building Height =20 stories for a maximum height of 200 feet BH: (Building Height): Building height shalt be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure. Only used for Front Yard,Side Yard and Rear Yard. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION ZDNL` G&LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 2004-05 DATE:November 10,2004 LDC SECTION:1.09.02(Definitions:Building,zoned height of) SUBJECT:Exemptions from Building Height Limitations INITIATED BY:Zoning Department Staff BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATIONS: The following language is contained within the definition of zoned building height referred to above:"Rooftop recreational space and accessory facilities are also exempted from the limitations established for measuring the height of buildings." The Code does not further define"recreational space and accessory facilities,"and a request for clarification of this language,with regard to the intent of the Code,has been received. DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): It is my determination that the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased building height,and refers to unenclosed,unroofed,and unairconditioned space for recreational use. This would include such uses as tennis courts,sun decks,running tracks,gym and exercise equipment,and swimming pools or spas which are not raised above rooftop level. The reference to accessory facilities would consist of those exceptions to height limitation identified in LDC Section 4.02.O1.D.1 as infrastructure in support of the building,including structures which do not consist of air-conditioned, habitable space, such as those used to house equipment (pumps, condensers,generators,elevators,etc.). AUTHOR Ross Gochenaur (for Susan Murray, AICP,Director, Department of 2onumg Sr Land Development Review) cc:Project planners Michael R.Fernandez,AICP,President,PDI Florida Building Code Definitions HABITABLE SPACE. A space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, screen enclosures, sunroom Categories I, II and III as defined in the AAMA/NPEA/NSA 2100, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces OCCUPIABLE SPACE. A room or enclosed space designed for human occupancy in which individuals congregate for amusement, educational or similar purposes or in which occupants are engaged at labor, and which is equipped with means of egress and light and ventilation facilities meeting the requirements of this code. Settlement Agreement #19 ll present and former elected or appointed officials, shall work together in good faith to accomplish the intent of this Agreement and Release." END Appellants Filing Administrative Appeal Type Ill Decision LDC Section 10.04.04 1. Diane Rupnow; 14555 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 2. Judith S. Palay; 14648 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 3. Frank Halas; 2531 Golfside Drive; Naples, FL 34110 4. Diane Halas; 2531 Golfside Drive; Naples, FL 34110 5. Diane D.Allen; 14806 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 6. Bruce Q.Allen 14806 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 7. William J. Bryzgalski; 14746 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 8. Phoebe B. Bryzgalski; 14746 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 9. Margaret T. Manna; 15498 Cedarwood Lane#202; Naples, FL 34110 10. Ferdinand J. Manna; 15498 Cedarwood Lane#202; Naples, FL 34110 11. Charlene Fisher; 14660 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 12.John Schaffer; 14660 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 13. Patrick Carey; 14611 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 14. Harold Linnerud; 17 Bluegill Avenue; Naples, FL 34108 15. August Larson; 425 Cove Tower Dr.# 1002; Naples, FL 34010 16. Hilda Glazer; 857 Carrick Bend Circle#203; Naples, FL 34110 17. Emily Kearns; 14722 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 18. Chris Kearns; 14722 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 19. Asimina Ginis; 14616 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 20. Barbara Schiffer; 15495 Cedarwood Lane,Apt. 105; Naples, FL 34110 21. Laurence A. Defuge; 15495 Cedarwood Lane, Apt 305; Naples, FL 34110 22. Ruth A. Defuge; 15495 Cedarwood Lane, Apt. 305; Naples, FL 34110 23. Charlene Raymond; 14652 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 24. Stephen Raymond; 14652 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 25.John C. Fox; 15161 Cedarwood Lane#1603; Naples, FL 34110 26. Gretchen K. Fox; 15161 Cedarwood Lane#1603; Naples, FL 34110 27. Arnold Hulzebosch; 14785 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 28. Anita Hulzebosch; 14785 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 29. Aric Rudden; 14542 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 30. Susan Leach Snyder; 17 Bluebill Ave.Apt. 803; Naples, FL 34108 31.James Floyd Snyder; 17 Bluebill Ave. Apt. 803; Naples, FL 34108 32. Patricia A. Clemente; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 205; Naples, FL 34110 33. Paul Clemente Jr.; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 205; Naples, FL 34110 34. Cheryl A. Wiecek; 14680 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 35. Marilyn Ann Stendahl; 14813 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 36. Carl Peter John Stendahl II; 14813 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 37. Mary Anne Lostaunau; 14742 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 38. Katherine Updegrove; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 101; Naples, FL 34110 39. William Noyes; 14576 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 40. Geraldine Noyes; 14576 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 41. Dennis Scharf; 14644 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 42. Donna Scharf; 14644 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 43. Edward Schiffer; 15495 Cedarwood LN APT 105; Naples, FL 34110 44. Nancy Rene Barton; 14581 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 45. Bill Larson; 425 Cove Tower Dr.# 1002; Naples, FL 34110 46. Nancy Straus; 14592 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 47.Jerry Straus; 14592 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 48. Brenda Sperry; 14595 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 49. Stephanie Fleetman; 14636 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 50.John Robert Tozer; 14581 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 51.Jim Wydick; 14591 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 52. Sandy Green; 14591 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 53. Louis R. DePrisco; 9-501 Arbor Lake Drive; Naples, FL 34110 54. Kathleen Gallagher; 849 Carrick Bend Circle#201; Naples, FL 34110 55.Tom Duncan; 14620 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 56. Anna Duncan; 14620 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 57. Arthur S. Baldadian; 425 Dockside Drive, Unit 901; Naples, FL 34110 58. Stephen Nichols; 14734 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 59. Mary Nichols; 14734 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 60. Kimberly Campbell; 14801 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 61. Walter Waselovich; 14801 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 62.Jerry Mansbach; 14615 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 63. Shirley Halpern; 14615 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 64. Gilbert Banker; 14624 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 65. Dr. Karen Wasko; 14538 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 66. Laraine Deutsch; 15525 Cedarwood Lane#102; Naples, FL 34110 67. Richard T. Peebles; 14551 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 68. Douglas R. Bloom; 14551 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 69. Elizabeth T. Cressy; 14664 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 70. David A. Cressy; 14664 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 71.John H. Rupnow; 14555 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 72. Steven Picheny; 8231 Bay Colony Drive, Apt 404; Naples, FL 34108 73. Joe Wood; 669 Mainsail PI.; Naples, FL 34110 74.Judith K. Cooper; 14534 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 75. Gail K. Frazee; 858 Carrick Bend Circle# 101; Naples, FL 34110 76.James D. Shaw; 841 Carrick Bend Circle Unit 201; Naples, FL 34110 77. Katherine P. Shaw; 841 Carrick Bend Circle Unit 201; Naples, FL 34110 78. Nanlee K. Hall; 866 Carrick Bend Circle# 103; Naples, FL 34110 79. Diane M. Mascianica; 14516 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 80. Francis S. Mascianica,Jr.; 14516 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 81. Robert LaForgia 14676 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 82. Alan Massey; 5615 Sherborn Drive; Naples, FL 34110 83. Patricia Massey; 5615 Sherborn Drive; Naples, FL 34110 84. Ellen Wright; 14688 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 85.Josephine Dingier; 1001 Arbor Lake Drive# 106; Naples, FL 86. Richard Dingier; 1001 Arbor Lake Drive# 106; Naples, FL 34110 87.Joni Gonnelly; 15495 Cedarwood Lane; Naples, FL 34110 88.Joe Gonnelly; 15495 Cedarwood Lane; Naples, FL 34110 89. Margaret K. Ross; 14520 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 90. Patsy A.Abbett; 14512 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 91. Dinah Rosenthal; 14566 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 92. Doug Fee: 754 Pan Am Avenue; Naples, FL 34110 93.Thomas A. Lynch; 14710 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 May 31, 2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A.4. This item requires that ex parte disclosi be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Arthrex Boulevard, Application Number PL20170001077. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE I 'Meetings ( 'Correspondence I le-mails I 1Calls Ex parte Items - Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A.5. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes Phase 1 A, Application Number PL20170001378. M NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE IMeetings I 'Correspondence fle-mails I 'Calls Building Separation LDC Separation Distance Based on Height. BH 1 x m Minimum Distance Between Buildings LDC Table 2. Building Dimensions Standards BH=Building Height ( BH + BH ) * 0.5 = BH ...m .. M -- -- - 1 Maurhouo Bid4 He{aht. I 710 a.maximum 'J / .° e r oV20ar� '2 Ar DJ:istaee BetweenPriadpal Siructatrte05 SBH 63 d,S 8H not km ' dtaa 15 feat neer Ares Mln, (Si) 1800 SF 1200 3F I ! � l 1 ' I fa (I.4b*j Heeslet):SWIM % tiltall be the veatic&disarm*retneuecil Cram the first habitable finished floor ekvition to the appermam[ amlirig elevation of etre txeetaare, i nit{Sum of Btslldfog i of two adjacent ta0dinp far the purpose*of deteemiainb scxnrdc ottpirwnrratt, All disatriOnt ane in toed widen otherwise BOWL* •I Front yank shall be ne weed as follows: �� y A. ft the weer it serval by a pub& u•of way,*aback is emaaured from the adjacent right-of-way line B. If the paned it screed by a private nail.setback is measured from the hick nt curb(if curbed)at edge at psi Cd are curbed). '2 Building hsige far the Acerb weeny line eijecent to Arbor Tram re dee"R I"trace still be IS steno kr 4 Maitiaetre WOE of 150 Feet. *3 Wane belikinp midi common diem dtaare 111014.skewed or offset from ore inorber,and walls rue sat parallel mese afoot,the setteQla oat be eatellegneadvely tedeeed. J Distance Between Principal Structures i Distance Between loillidpi. Principal Structures Reduced Reduced 1111101/01 Distance Between Principal Structures Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, 1 and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced. "It has been staff's interpretation for decades that the reduction in building separation can be reduced from 200 feet and that reduction is not limited." Executive Summary page 4 of 8 "During the CCPC hearings, when asked how much of a reduction could be administratively approved with the existing language of footnote 3, planning staff replied, ':..the basic question is, is the reduction in setbacks or separation of structures limited by the PUD document?And the answer is no, the separation is unlimited. I can't see any grounds in there for intent to reduce it a certain amount, or it would have been specified...There simply is nothing that limits the amount of reduction." (Page 55 of CCPC January 11, 2008 Public Hearing, Attachment "E"). " Executive Summary page 4 of 8 The table below identifies the present and historical application of the building setback reduction. Summary of Common Architectural Theme(CAT)Building Separation Setback Reductions Development Setback Required Setback Approved(utilizing Percent Reduction CAT) Water Park Place @ Pelican (1/2 Bldg Height) 100 feet 25 feet 75% Bay Sand Pointe @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Isle Verde @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Villa Cantana @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Vizcaya @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Bouganillas Condo @ Lago Front:35 feet Side:25'Rear:35 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 42%40%57%60% Verde feet Bldg Sep:25' Cordoba @ Lely Resort Front:20 feet Side: 10 feet Bldg 6.4 feet 3.1 feet 5.3 feet 68%69%47% Sep: 10 feet Kalea Bay @ Cocohatchee (1/2 the sum of Bldg 100 feet 50% Bay PUD Heights) 200 feet Executive Summary page 6 of 8 Correction 7; Location of!lidos, status: Carried F orwa rd Date Stat.': Changed: :2,16/2C lE comrrerts: Please orovide :I-e location arc error-cement of at proposed buildings in:LCI-1g exis:ing buildings that are LL en ifl. 3utlare 2 shou,o skewed more, so as to no: appear to be parellel with ELi uiicj :1 it is to remain aligned Aith Lildung 1, then t most meet Inc setkeoks esteblisheo in the p q r -- N • o a ? • q Building Width Kalea Bay Comparison between the Settlement SDP and 2nd Phase SDP Building Widths and Building Separations Settlement SDP 2nd Phase SDP variance Building 1 width 260 310 50 separation 153 109 -44 Building 2 width 260 310 50 separation 126 165 39 Building 3 width 260 310 50 separation 127 100 -27 Building 4 width 260 310 50 separation 341 106 -235 Building 5 width 260 310 50 1,300 747 1,550 480 250 -267 63.5% 36.5% 76.4% 23.6% 19.2% -35.7% 2,047 2,030 ^e"t"=^ 7 s€ $i s t �ti• �/•,•1''Ys s.s .,;;.r #"n•.....✓`T } .` �: 3€: `� •` m„Ff;) . LF PHASE t; 'tF • �� ` 1. r G �` 1.11 'l I 1. • x' 1.....,1,1)'; .,-: - �k 1 1114 ' i I srMM1' � �. 1 � .I 1 k\i t Z, rely ,...77 .�.. �'_s�i.Y ) :xsi 'O� , airy '.._ j, tI1'L . Y � • � rit ,4, .,,....•...;,,,,,, . . .. . •.v.z...! ...I) \\,, TYS'-• •4:',?-1'.. 1..)FII/. /'..4111.1‘.;\"•;•7"--- r�'�1w-': li '• 'S..1iN.,..,..:••:•••••.•.'•••.••••••'.:'7?.Kt..1-..•4*•••.•"•;'••••.•4...••-•.••••.•••••.•••••„••..;•,4,•:t•-•,'„'-.•1”''.,1Q..•.••••14"•'4••,••:.•-;•••j•4-rr l414i ® t — Settlement lig' em,. , e er" ...: t....: i 111 it .....'. j..i; • • I .....4.....•-• *,.._ ,Jr PAlpgar., _ Nr:is 01 ,., 7. _ ; 1 . . ....,'1"'""!--:- ,w.. _. } ,; : i --- 1 . . ..,,,. . . _ . - • • - l\ d ,./.. ,.., ., ....._. ,, ,..,...,,-._., -.-..... ...-.,..„ •A tv., • 00 ' a ` f ~ • , S.„,:t I'1\ ny(. rosy Mil .�..._.>� r • ti tt ` • . Current . , \ u Building Height Maximum Building Height Maximum Building Height=20 stories for a maximum height of 200 feet BH: (Building Height): Building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure. Only used for Front Yard,Side Yard and Rear Yard. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION ZONLNG&LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 2014-05 DATE:November 10,2004 LDC SECTION:1.04.02(Definitions:Building,zoned height oft SUBJECT:Exemptions from Building Height Limitations INITIATED BY:Zoning Department Staff BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATIONS: The following language is contained within the definition of zoned building height referred to above:"Rooftop recreational space and accessory facilities are also exempted from the limitations established for measuring the height of buildings." The Code does not further define"recreational space and accessory facilities," and a request for clarification of this language,with regard to the intent of the Code,has been received. DETER`, NATION (CLARIFICATION): It is my determination that the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased building height,and refers to unenclosed,unroofed,and unairconditioned space for recreational use. This would include such uses as tennis courts,sun decks,running tracks,gym and exercise equipment,and swimming pools or spas which are not raised above rooftop level. The reference to accessory facilities would consist of those exceptions to height limitation identified in LDC Section 4_02_01_D.1 as infrastructure in support of the building„including structures which do not consist of air-conditioned, habitable space, such as those used to house equipment (pumps, condensers,generators,elevators,etc.). AUTHOR Ross Gochenaur (for Susan Murray, -MCP, Director, Department of Zoning&Land Development Review) cc:Project planners Michael R.Fernandez,AICP,President,PDI Florida Building Code Definitions HABITABLE SPACE. A space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, screen enclosures, sunroom Categories I, II and III as defined in the EA/NSA 2100, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces OCCUPIABLE SPACE. A room or enclosed space designed for human occupancy in which individuals congregate for amusement, educational or similar purposes or in which occupants are engaged at labor, and which is equipped with means of egress and light and ventilation facilities meeting the requirements of this code. it Settlement Agreement #19 present and former elected or appointed officials, shall work together in good faith to accomplish the intent of this Agreement and Release." END Appellants Filing Administrative Appeal Type Ill Decision LDC Section 10.04.04 1. Diane Rupnow; 14555 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 2. Judith S. Palay; 14648 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 3. Frank Halas; 2531 Golfside Drive; Naples, FL 34110 4. Diane Halas; 2531 Golfside Drive; Naples, FL 34110 5. Diane D.Allen; 14806 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 6. Bruce Q. Allen 14806 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 7. William J. Bryzgalski; 14746 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 8. Phoebe B. Bryzgalski; 14746 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 9. Margaret T. Manna; 15498 Cedarwood Lane#202; Naples, FL 34110 10. Ferdinand J. Manna; 15498 Cedarwood Lane#202; Naples, FL 34110 11. Charlene Fisher; 14660 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 12.John Schaffer; 14660 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 13. Patrick Carey; 14611 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 14. Harold Linnerud; 17 Bluegill Avenue; Naples, FL 34108 15. August Larson; 425 Cove Tower Dr.# 1002; Naples, FL 34010 16. Hilda Glazer; 857 Carrick Bend Circle#203; Naples, FL 34110 17. Emily Kearns; 14722 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 18. Chris Kearns; 14722 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 19. Asimina Ginis; 14616 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 20. Barbara Schiffer; 15495 Cedarwood Lane, Apt. 105; Naples, FL 34110 21. Laurence A. Defuge; 15495 Cedarwood Lane, Apt 305; Naples, FL 34110 22. Ruth A. Defuge; 15495 Cedarwood Lane, Apt. 305; Naples, FL 34110 23. Charlene Raymond; 14652 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 24. Stephen Raymond; 14652 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 25.John C. Fox; 15161 Cedarwood Lane#1603; Naples, FL 34110 26. Gretchen K. Fox; 15161 Cedarwood Lane#1603; Naples, FL 34110 27. Arnold Hulzebosch; 14785 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 28. Anita Hulzebosch; 14785 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 29. Aric Rudden; 14542 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 30. Susan Leach Snyder; 17 Bluebill Ave.Apt. 803; Naples, FL 34108 31.James Floyd Snyder; 17 Bluebill Ave. Apt. 803; Naples, FL 34108 32. Patricia A. Clemente; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 205; Naples, FL 34110 33. Paul Clemente Jr.; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 205; Naples, FL 34110 34. Cheryl A. Wiecek; 14680 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 35. Marilyn Ann Stendahl; 14813 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 36. Carl Peter John Stendahl II; 14813 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 37. Mary Anne Lostaunau; 14742 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 38. Katherine Updegrove; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 101; Naples, FL 34110 39. William Noyes; 14576 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 40. Geraldine Noyes; 14576 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 41. Dennis Scharf; 14644 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 42. Donna Scharf; 14644 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 ,m........_........ : PI VIANIrr6 WWI 5 !!I OrKIN"4441P4914;111,!P l'g-iphRgi'm rislii,149 ISILTilaliViliaig !IN IP:4 -1/1 sileT.,/,'Aglq:115//0:g-hlAiNtSg”s441,1e,!3, 1,-.11/F:ip ,,,,tiq;444',Y4P11: Iiihilq:';'.' 41,, brillalli; piiilo: 016o/14,:i4gsvps; ihs, Al ,/! 04i*ki'sb§5tsikidi ''-trO64:44 1 larii-1/1!t,:i•4-• !.164/4/!..kok./1/4 i i.s': .!itovitiei!g/ ,4.1,, ',!i . h!si.,ii 'llie's'•'"if4 P ill'itATI,X! :1 i 4's! rotto11,1/4 iy.!,,,p. iii,g!ii0.0 l!k,xillsill14: Pli ,1!, ,,/i! iiphOligt -4 1''-'1=/11. -510 hAti/T liEow„nps:: is.,1.,, 41g,1,4> r,:, !!!53 A! qtallii!4,,!,1.tpii,i i4.411141.„!.-,44,k,i Niiiiia,giodpo: ,,,t g iR t dividgfk g+tttg,:it i .5,,-"'5!5:5'1AV";6:"%""6.3 59'419''t111! 1 '51"P!4:6 wil.a1.1g5.46:.,,V, 404;1115.1p.!4* ;06 55.f." :,Mii"55z1545,5 qtqfPi'1 11 , 1.10i414,11h ,41i ”61'Pir; 101.44V,1t011:1!,i6/4iitkiii!i5:1415 6;i59055 '4?' li,;sA 11; RF;;441;04T -11111/41,11 g; ; n;ff.g1141 1;1 140 1114 PV!,,rta3,i1l'.4O!x0lii.i/i!4164T114;4,i6:01.1l-1%e14;;6,441I1h,f..0,Ai eaV.„ :I11 14t;1!‘4;F.V1:y11:1i;i11L=h11155,1s1;4.4i3,1VV55q9,44,V,[I0.W1 h,14411j.14l ,2.' ig4i'1ze1114 :1614q1I10-Pr4P,,1[!1A"44' ,,o.!50ki4sl,hi,i 14 1g,45pr4r511i0it-1 !l4"11;ii1V46141''1.0a',1k'+1l1-trw501.P.k0,,41,°g0i1,!..,.4A1 l :V61hVA , ep1tfI: 44144 . i0kn .53 1 X 44 48 4 : KI "i i'.. 0 4'4P1'!.re,! -de'[[41"; 1R51Y1k;,1;/I ! i 4il,gq,,,;Z;/,,,i bk4! 1iij ; i b,;11S1i5 :PAO; 1,41.44.4.11.1p,,15N,/:;,,,,J:. 1 ! ?. r, Prg1q1 11,1.Et5';' 4 .3 1 51,645,%!,1-I Pe,;1. • T,,,4'''s,h-1.4. , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I m t gE:iicl El I :04-„,,,, -,-„ 1 I.I !Tn f T 1-ff 14-il „ ,,6-„,,,,4 k?4,,,T-i•- ,,?,,,,:=0, r,; A.., 4,4 .0*:. , 1 :411:1,• ' 14,1 ,:i-- C.) IN% 774-- wig,.; ',4 ;,;'''',.'4 j •.v...,-; j i .41,3r). 11 ; 111 H111111111111 ..2I.11'43111'13 , i„..., balibill' !' I' [ Cg 3 0116." 1,2 ! C...) M 1...14 lh 114"°41 0 --1 eZ) 0 t.11.'---1 ek‘11:115 u-) ,-.. .or ,•:,-0 "........... ttri r•-,... !-,,,.,`,cA 1 . 51 i • 11 ; 100. rh- .44.. rn kt:i ku gi'c',rt0 1:'= c.,,co c:;. •••,,,a rh , m P.% i1? ''.‘6 5.): 11.4414 is.'2 IN 11':-;"!tm!: ' ‘'N‘1.\,!''! •.'i1N‘SI' ' : " ,; . , 0 .lo 0 1,, s,......,.....Nr.,. .14,64 CI) 1" 1-'6';"1%w.k5;*V •,:- "<4.1) ' ---i!;5m1 .,.,1t. I / 41(0 t C../1 km xi, ,N1;, ,. 0 , ;;4, i-, - r, / , = ..,..:. .-.-. ......., ., j ; w /)0 1;11 F.''' --,c•-.. .. _ .__ R i, • -!•:4 1:y'![['1 sc:'- z = z 41 -.! to I '''' ram. "1 t 11! • ;5,-511°' "--1,!:.l'k\, ,1•!71 -^f1"\\ .1;-2.1 ' 1 5-0— •••1 :‘,--5 if czt,Co 51P-,-,• 551 , 11 ,H ; ; ;') -,, 4=" •••1 It, i - 15-5 CO ig i CO CC's Czto 0:3 . / o --. ..-2,- ! (f) :.5 ,/ ,..4- _xi 0 ›. :-.J h /' ° ...,-,- > __-, 4/4,,,i = 1 04. U-1 iiret* , :: zil, 149 > at --v1 ' '4,i'=,-----`. 1 / • m ..2 ii"DI' :!:5 1110101146Wg i ii.:f1.:1,,i , 6!-11,,11.15-1,5.,4 5•1551-15.1S-0 [5,, -4 L*11 13 ,I,,2.,12 0 sz, ,s,03 ,[1 !..:'[...[ P[ )!. P t 11:Lit M I g'/111 al r P4 3 ' ili ; 5% ..!,- . .,'i S51`Th !--60!:6 6 fik,,,,,0 .';':, ,A.,:;1561 titlt.,:61:c116 511, Nu.IPIM i 1 ilifv15,1,F 1 : 14 1:, 11- •551 I h':,`" It.1666i;!'6 `,1, ::-1",!"55 5/'59 110:ii 61 1 1• -1.11“%. • 1 ' V' I il 5:1 •;:,.;:,, 1,,, :1 , , .1 .5! 1C - ) §: 4! h ii 1 ,.) g 0 Cn441' I 'o 1 - '''; ' ' P' 4 il 4 d ;,v i!A-41k :g ,i4,,4 ,e ':.: f,-, ,' 1 r l-,'4 OP; 1 ;44;4 ;;;; •"1Y;; A''',!---./5'1 6 ' ' ' : • ! ' ' : I ritil s;' P, t 11E1 ,- 11 .,! I I i.. • ii,,..,), 4) ,, !,„ if,,, i 4. •,.,r.z r A,,, ...,, ,,„,,:i..;,4,,,,1,..„, , , : : : 1 .!..,,!., ,. : ,,, l itr---/ ,4 P.,, ; !4 ;4414! 1.1";:4;14 ;;H;;•rei kl !411 .1.t5EV,111.,1:1;::.: 1 •,,,,„ lill ;,I 1 q s 1 41; t-41-qrt,1;:t..1- 4;:3;:_,/ 1.uojrcuill;liM1V1fill ,.12 i 4ilii .. I 1 k $;_;Orgit :!.;•::;a111111 1 I 11'81W i' 1 a r.''r,‘;.zx -,..- - tip t • : : , : : : - : , : 111 1 i i 1 i 1 1 i i III °171. 14'74 i . e3 1,.; ....-'-- nizw,cto t 11 gltut / ! 1!..'11 5k., 515 /.! ,! . 5,.. 1q1g 1 t!51 6 5:5=55rFtriA.F **."` s*1 • 5 y -,y : 8 ',, 4) .AL ..134:477.1"'S 2 cal I ll g :ll ( \v f ill �Yl s % a1 4 .—. . . .N,‘,.,,ii•:•.—',-1 .,.. .1§1,.,.1.,i, . , ,,_,--, :_..- ,:-....,..„ ,.,, r„.„,_.:. ,..,..,.:„:, . , . „ . . ,1„,c1,'`, 1,`_,.....---', •.--0 • ._,_},-,' , ..`,..`,*,a•N, „ , . , .t/q.A. . 4,..„4„;To ,,,,,..., • • • 7 la f F 1 _ a -'\\ t <� ze �Y�� <1 aI'� 1 if , ,I ,C �1 w� 1 • • �, r, g2: I vs. 1 kalma � �� A4, 41 I F? / � , . ," 7. ^` 3 1� •,-,,,..,-, . , $.1 • • • • //------t\ 1.„-<', <'.<:<:,; ',...,..:..0- ,...: -, .. ,.. .\ --. . ..,... , 1 .„...,. ,,,,,,,.,, ,,,,,..._. „„iii4,41,,,,...., ,,,,,,/7„,,, j , \ , •�` __, / ,,,,,,„,,,,‘ ,,,,,,•-f , 1 1 1., / < `'''''''` * . .°''''1(..\:04.'"'""X - - -i 1 1r Soar"Mil-,mei . ,,,,,', --2 '4 ,''' i- ''',,k:.,. 4 ,',:e'f"•>4'e• :4,' ) ..........74.1 \ IR,,, ' _ 42,;„'P...—= 1,',', . ? \[i -----4 r?„, = ";#144 /, , ,,l''';‘,,, ,N. ' i''. .-', ' "' ' ' II 1-,, 1 ,9-,> ..--" ,,/,' :( ,. &,-'', ' Y g -44„, , till Ile 1t i s t .�' � q ° f \� f 010 coAsr RM0 � I Jip � ' j' s \;� .i-_'1f E �. , oto L� Y i S g li t i 4.:7,1 of , I jM� tlll i _ ' II I4 1 ,: t. wi e t 4r j — 'I ve S' VAND RBLIT DRIC R . 901rie �� PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY).:, - _ g t r 3 Y4 i a t!a 1r 4r 6i' 3 t4 N $ /i Sit ' 41 '/( i/ii, d1# { 1 f i,' ii 11 s,t$ . 441/ 1 $1411444i;/,, 1 Xa; 1,4 _ , 1mill lief ort f 3- iO3,ll s 4 yy l i 1t 1.1'L 3 ,F hp X rp P i t t3 1X r a'n 4 z i'( ! M� 4 A 11'4 a 1 31, ill! gri 1 a };it ! 11/ XS kd ,1 9 t , 3 €a1s 43 iioe t ;1f''Will 2 A ono ox E air. 3 kr d 14g'S q°7e iq a i :xx ! agh: s1: v '^- aaa mg° ;4 ,f Sly +f 1 g it s t q:', fx1 j !NI; 4 n ; p S € gg tV ' gX t$ f 1 ,q tt t } 63 a34l'§ i leg S, l 'r-1' n R 1 `1 x �d a F a 33 sig @ S at 1 a Fi p s g E} :A 'A fi 1� °' [} t a §e ,,lily a on i z !I)Lf d §a cShCl i,1 i d Y `$SJ I= F d 5: $ Y /5 7 S , 1 ''1114 1 Ei d,", �'^ V S s d `v3 f f 4 1i t S} 5Y 1.14 11th°.x 1 t ; % vii �z I d H ,4t 6 I i Fp ! x x � , f`5 X33 fi? v j ori pIo n o t� o ( i .kM fib r`}'"" 'a ,..._...� /'yam//'^ t 2 3 ; tF 3 +� qyui it fi , Y n h; a> I ! f§yah p .:.�1 � Al ';“.:„..i.',.,:•; 's I• •. # b 3 aF3 m I� - -, R RS3M S -. . o y{y� ,; 'k yYy 1 E °3 '4 F ��._.. I { Stu. f l ` ,i,,,,„,,,, a zi n r N F ,:1 ® R' I4,4 n '� i .�+I-n . ..... e r 1 Lodge/AbbottAssociates LLC '..:;..-401":4,'1w.; ,. x. u.°ako aGe a 1,, 3400 Lafayette Seet Detro X8 48207 ¢CnnsuIt naGroup .. „.,....., r - .., .,..... 313-567-7000 t t' KALEA 94Y-Phu.11-11 SOPA to AR-.5284 Sections 8.16,17020 Township 485,Range 75E =te,` w ,, - - - - V}V Master 200 Melt County,%tdo _ nli'ii'm a ur wm au -e u, 1 t e ' � LADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REQUEST Appellants are requesting that the Collier County Board of Commissioners reverse the: 1. administrative reduction in building separation and 2. administrative increase in building widths and 3. administrative approval of additional dwelling units and 4. administrative increase in overall building height all of which are described in further detail in the narrative below, and were made without a public hearing, and without providing a procedural due process noticed opportunity for adversely affected third parties, including Appellants and the public, to be heard. Appellants further request the Collier County Board of Commissioners mandate compliance with the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release, signed on June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts the following day, which references the 3 SDPs approved before, or concurrent with, recording of the Settlement Agreement and referenced in the Settlement Agreement, paragraph 3 (Exhibit 19) and require that any significant changes to the PUD and the SDPs approved in conjunction with said Settlement Agreement be approved by the BCC and require a supermajority vote of the BCC pursuant to the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release. II. Narrative Describing the Request and Legal Basis for Appeal The Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement, PUD, the Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission, and three SDPs reviewed and approved by staff, were approved by the Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as "BCC") on April 22, 2008. (Exhibit 7).This action was taken as part of the Summary Agenda. The BCC approved all documents as presented without objection from the County Attorney, County Manager, county staff, the petitioner, and the petitioner's agent or citizens.The Settlement Agreement, signed on June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts the following day, is a legally binding document in which paragraph 21 unambiguously relates that any changes must be "executed with the same formalities" specified in this Agreement. (Exhibit 19) Thus, changes must be approved by a supermajority of the BCC. Even apart from the Settlement Agreement, the Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000, contains a Development Standards table (Exhibit 1 p 2375) with the formula for determining "distance between principal structures" (0.5 SBH *fn3) The formula 0.5 SBH means that the distance between buildings should be one-half the sum of the buildings' height (200' + 200' = 400' divided by 2 = 200'). Therefore, the distance between two buildings 200' in height should be at least 200'. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000 does contains a *footnote 3: "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." Footnote 3 should not be applied to allow unreasonable, significant major reductions or increases without first going to the BOCC. Footnote 3 administrative reductions should only be applied reasonably to minor or insignificant reductions unless these changes are brought back to the BOCC and procedural due process is afforded to affected third parties and citizens. Administrative staff reductions should not have • been used to drastically and significantly reduce setback distances between buildings to nearly half the required setback, or to increase the width of buildings 50' wider than shown in the PUD. The setback were nearly halved without a public hearing and opportunity for public comment on significant changes to building separation distances without procedural due process notice and a right to be heard in a BOCC public hearing. The county staff does not have the requisite authority to make modifications to the SDPs utilizing administrative. Despite this fact, the following changes to Cocohatchee Bay aka Kalea Bay have already been implemented in phase 1 and have been approved by staff for phases II-VI: -- Building Separations: Building separations are less than code minimums of 1/2 the sum of the building heights, and less than the already reduced and adjusted separations (as per PUD footnote #3, Exhibit 7A) shown on the SDPs attached to the PUD and Settlement Agreement.Those separations are as follows: building 1 to 2, 153 feet; building 2 to 3, 126 feet; building 3 to 4, 127 feet; building 4 to 5, 341 feet. (Exhibit 7A). Building 1 is now nearly completed and is 50 feet wider than shown on the BCC approved SDPs. The apparent intent is to also make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building to the plan. Increasing the width of these buildings would further exacerbate the building separation issue and result in them being just 109 feet, 165 feet, 100 feet and 100 feet apart. Staff interpretation that there is no limit to an administrative reduction building separations because of clauses such as 'footnote #3', is not a credible interpretation, reducing the language to an absurdity. Additionally, staff cannot ignore the fact that the CCPC memo was included on the Summary Agenda and was approved by The Board on April 22, 2008. (Exhibit 7C). To quote from the CCPC review that was accepted and approved by Board action, "However, as a result of language in the PUD, the CCPC recommended reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. As an alternative to the reduction in separation, greater distances could be provided by moving alternating towers closer to Vanderbilt Drive." (Exhibit 7C). Collier staff members unilaterally, and without authority, permitted significant major modifications without noticing a public hearing by the BCC. In the Memorandum (Exhibit 33) attached to Amendment SDPA PL20160002242, in the Amendment Approval Notification, staff cited several examples of alleged historical application of administrative reduction. Only one of the citations was a high-rise and that was for a side set- back which is not a building separation issue. In Brandon Sancho's response to our request for public records (Exhibit 25) showing all instances in Collier County in which staff allowed administrative reduction of the required minimum separation between skewed buildings having a common architectural theme (Exhibit 26), "The footnote in question is related to the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD). The only project that has utilized this specific footnote is Kinsale Condominiums Phases II-VI, SDP-2004-AR-5284." Kinsale is Cocohatchee Bay as indicated later in his response. Therefore, there are no past projects analogous to the Kalea Bay project. --Width of Buildings: Building 1 is nearly completed and is 50 feet wider than shown on the BCC approved SDPs. The apparent intent is to also make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building to the plan. Increasing the width of these buildings would further exacerbate the building separation issue and result in them being just 109 feet, 165 feet, 100 feet and 100 feet apart. --Guest Suites: The developer has added twelve (12) guest suites as accessory units.The PUD lists guest suites and cabanas as permitted uses and they are to be counted as part of the total number of residential units-- 590. Four 20 story buildings, each with 120 units, equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Adding twelve guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So, as of this date, and without bringing the issue to the BCC for a public hearing and without the approval by a BCC supermajority required by the Settlement Agreement, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of units specified. -- Height: Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top structures such as the community meeting room and fitness center. According to the PUD, "building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the upper-most finished ceiling elevation of the roof structure."The elevated pool adds to the building height as well.Also, County Land Development Code staff and Zoning & Land Development staff issued an official clarification on the issue of roof-top accessory structures: SC 2004-05. "...the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased height, and refers to unenclosed, unroofed, and non-air-conditioned space for recreation use." (Exhibit 36). A housing unit (a habitable structure) has been added to the upper garage level, conflicting further with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. Numerous attempts to attain an explanation for such conduct have fallen on deaf ears. These include attempts such as: asking questions to staff (Exhibit 15,26), speaking with our District 2 Commissioner (Time line Feb 24, 2017), and addressing each of the Commissioners (Time line: Feb 22, 2017, Feb 27, 2017, March 20, 2017) to share our concerns. (Exhibits 15-22) We have attended BCC meetings (April 18, 2017-Exhibit 27), sent letters to the newspaper (Exhibit 8, 8A), and emailed or visited staff(Exhibit 22A), but to no avail. These attempts took place both before and after construction of building one. In fact, appellants were forced to engage counsel [ Ralf Brookes] in early 2015. Appellants discovered that plans existing at the County are inconsistent with those submitted to South Florida Water Management District -- preventing any factual analysis to be conducted. (Exhibit 13A) On March 24, 2015, the developer attempted to breach the Agreement by adding 62 housing units to the eastern parcel (Exhibits 9, 10, 11). At that time, the Collier County Commissioners denied this attempt and agreed not to open or amend said Settlement Agreement. Residents in North Naples thought that the Settlement Agreement and PUD would protect the Cocohatchee Bay area as this Agreement promised "forever" and "in perpetuity." However, that has not proven to be true. Counsel for the appellants sent a letter to Collier County via the County Attorney (Exhibit 16) in which he stated our objections to non-compliance with the Settlement Agreement and PUD. Objections included: unreasonable building separations, the means by which those were determined, the lack of public hearing and the allowance of habitable space in the upper garage level. County Commissioners did not receive a copy, hence visits to each. If Kalea Bay were to be built as currently proposed, it would not be compatible with the neighborhood. (Exhibit 38) Nowhere else in this area are there high-rises where the distances between buildings have this degree of unreasonable separation. III. Relief Sought 1. ISSUE 1 NO PUBLIC HEARING: County staff has allowed changes to the SDPs approved in conjunction with the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement without a public hearing. As explained in the "Narrative Describing This Request," staff made significant changes that far exceeded minor adjustments, were not reasonable adjustments, and will have an observable negative impact on our community forever. RELIEF SOUGHT: The Collier County Board of Commissioners reject the significant adverse and unreasonable changes made by staff to the original SDPs. In addition, we request that the Collier County Board of Commissioners upholds the Settlement Agreement and requires that any changes to SDPs should be reviewed by staff and then submitted to the BCC for a public hearing. 2. ISSUE 2 BUILDING SEPARATION: The Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000, contains a Development Standards table (Exhibit 1 p 2375) with the formula for determining "distance between principal structures" (0.5 SBH *fn3) referencing a *footnote 3: "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." The formula 0.5 SBH means that the distance between buildings should be one-half the sum of the buildings' height (200' + 200' = 400' divided by 2 = 200'). Therefore, the distance between two buildings 200' in height should be 200'. Footnote 3 should be applied reasonably, and should not be used to drastically and significantly reduce setbacks, especially when buildings were made 50' wider than shown in the PUD. (See Issue 3 below). Taken to the extreme, footnote 3 should not be used to eliminate the requirements for building separation with no limit to the amount of administrative reduction. Typically, administrative reductions might involve a few feet or small percent but not drastic, significant reductions that will have an observable negative impact on our community forever. The staffs' unlimited interpretation of footnote 3 allowed Kalea Bay building separations to be reduced from the 200' required by code to 153', 126', 127' between buildings and reduced the setback from the lake to 431'. We have also highlighted a portion of a quote from the "CCPC SUMMARY OF COCOHATCHEE BERT HARRIS REVIEW" (Exhibit 7C) which is part of the Executive Summary dated April 22, 2008. It states, "However, as a result of the language in the PUD, the CCPC recommended that reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement Agreement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC." If you allow the widths of buildings 2-5 to be increased 50 feet(our 3rd ISSUE), building separations will be "less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC." RELIEF SOUGHT: We ask the Board of County Commissioners to enforce the building separation formula and require the 200' separation between buildings. For the future of our community, we request that limits be in place for the amount or degree of administrative reductions that can be made by County staff. While a 5 % reduction might be reasonable, a 50% reduction to the SDPs approved with the Settlement Agreement and PUD is not reasonable! 3. ISSUE 3 BUILDING WIDTHS: County staff administratively approved an increase in width from 260' to 310' for Kalea Bay Building 1. Apparently, the intent is to make Buildings 2-5 at least 50' wider as well, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building. Making the buildings wider exacerbates the already reduced and adjusted building separations. If buildings 2-5 are allowed to become 50' wider, the towers would be just 109; 165'100'and 100'apart —in most cases half the distance they should be. These buildings will appear to be a wall of concrete with very limited light, air flow and view between them. Depictions drawn to scale (Exhibit 37) illustrate that it would truly create a "condo-canyon" on the landscape along with the deep, uninterrupted shadows for drivers, pedestrians, and bikers. It would certainly detract from the sense of place in our community. The expansion of building widths, combined with the unreasonable administrative adjustment to building separations, gives Kalea Bay a look that is not compatible with our neighborhood. RELIEF SOUGHT: Retain the building widths approved in the PUD. Do not allow buildings 2-5 to be increased in width from 260' to 310'. This does not comply with the SDPs approved with the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 4. ISSUE 4 GUEST SUITES: The developer has added 12 guest suites as accessory units. The PUD lists guest suites under "Uses Permitted" as a "Principal Use" along with multi-family dwellings. Four 20 story buildings, each with 120 units, equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Adding twelve (12) guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So, as of this date, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of dwelling units specified. RELIEF SOUGHT: Require that guest suites be counted as part of the total number of residential units, a maximum total of 590. 5. ISSUE 5 BUILDING HEIGHT: Four (4) of the Kalea Bay towers are limited to 20 stories or a maximum of 200' in height and the fifth building is limited to 17 stories or a maximum of 175' in height. Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top features such as the community meeting room and fitness center which would violate these height limits. See Kalea Bay's website. RELIEF SOUGHT: Do not allow the Applicant to add an additional story to each building by enclosing the fitness center and community meeting room. Enforce the maximum height of each of the buildings as shown on the SDPs per the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 6. ISSUE 6 GARAGE DWELLING UNIT: A housing unit (habitable structure) has been added to the upper garage level which further conflicts with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. It also appears that this housing unit will not be counted as part of the density. RELIEF SOUGHT: Remove the dwelling unit from the upper level of the garage or count that garage level with the habitable floors. Furthermore, if the unit is allowed, it must be counted as part of the 590- maximum density per the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 7. ISSUE 7 RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: Paragraph eight of the Settlement Agreement states that one-fifth of the golf course parcel, east of Vanderbilt Drive, is to be placed into RECORDED Restrictive Covenants before or at the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each Kalea Bay building. Building 1 should be getting its Certificate of Occupancy in 2017. No Restrictive Covenant has been recorded. When the Restrictive Covenant is issued, it should be reviewed by the County Attorney prior to its recording. REQUEST: Monitor and be aware of this rapidly approaching requirement contained in the Settlement Agreement. That land was purposed to provide green space and additional buffering for adjacent communities and one-fifth of the golf course parcel, east of Vanderbilt Drive must be placed into a RECORDED Restrictive Covenant before or at the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each Kalea Bay building. 8. ISSUE 8 INVASIVE CONTROL: Glen Eden on the Lakes, for example, has been paying to have invasives removed from its 67.5' buffer(preserve) with the Cocohatchee Bay golf course for at least 15 years. However, the developer had not done maintenance within his 100' adjoining native vegetation buffer until 2016. At that point, the invasives had taken over to such a degree that the removal of invasives resulted in nearly total destruction of the vegetation buffer. REQUEST: Replant buffer with native trees and maintain vegetation buffer (preserve area) now that the invasive trees have finally been removed. We also request that compliance with county regulations regarding maintenance of preserves and removal of invasive species be monitored. 9. ISSUE 9 10 FOOT PATHWAY ON WEST SIDE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE: Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement requires a 10-foot pathway be constructed on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. It states that "This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project." In 2016, the County dug up the old walkway west of Vanderbilt Drive to install new water pipes. Then, the County installed a new walkway west of Vanderbilt Drive. In some places, it is 6 feet wide; in some places, it is 8 feet wide; in some places, it is 9 feet wide. In some places, it is black asphalt and in other places it looks like cement sidewalk. It is hodge-podge in appearance and is definitely not a "10-foot pathway". We observed the County doing all the work on this walkway, but we do not know if it was built by or with Lodge funds. RELIEF SOUGHT: Require Lodge to pay for and install a complete 10- foot pathway on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive as per terms in the Settlement Agreement. • IN SUMMARY: Appellants are requesting that the Collier County Board of Commissioners mandate compliance with the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release, signed on June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts the following day. Compliance as requested includes the Settlement Agreement, PUD, Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission and three SDPS reviewed and approved by staff. We request that you do not allow staff to approve changes to the SDPs WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING. We request that the building separation formula be applied to require building separation of 1/2 sum of the • total building height for Kalea Bay towers. At the very least, we require that building separations not be "less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC." Furthermore, we request that the BCC put limits in place regarding the amount or degree of administrative reductions that can be made by county staff. Clearly defined limitations would result in uniformity, transparency and consistency in staff decisions. We request that you do not allow staff to approve Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5 to be built 50 feet wider than the 260 feet shown on the approved SDPs. It is unfair to allow county staff to administratively change this important project component WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING. It is unconscionable to deny citizens and neighbors their procedural due process rights. Appellants deserve the opportunity to be heard IN A PUBLIC HEARING on whether these changes should have been approved by the County with staff input only. The changes that were made to Kalea Bay SDPs by staff were not minor changes of a couple of feet but major departures from what the citizens thought they were getting. REQUEST FOR RETURN OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL FEE FOR THIRD PARTY CITIZEN OBJECTORS: We request that the Collier County Commissioners waive or return the fee for this Administrative Appeal. We have tried contacting Commissioners on numerous occasions prior to the plans being approved by staff to let them know that the construction at Kalea Bay was not being done according to the Settlement Agreement, PUD and SDPs. The County Attorney advised us that the only way to bring this to your attention was to file an Administrative Appeal.That hardly seems fair. We hope you will waive the fee. Thank you. /s/Ralf Brookes Attorney for Appellants June 6, 2017 letn: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 Bac raa E26.00 CLUB ?O ?B'8 BOARD RECORDED it the OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, PL COPIES 91.00 IN?{1BiFFXCI 4TH FLOOR 06/10/2008 it 10:46AN DNIGB? I. BROCB, CLERK IIT 7240 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this day ofC,r., _ , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle M tiRtan; and WHEREAS, the PUD tri ucstion is also sometunjs.referred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD; and i WHEREAS, Lodge filed a petition fors certiorari tie Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, FloridaOto=attack the City's deci *ns concerning the proposed amendment to the PUD's Bald eagle Management ie beingstyled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier County t o>Qs 967 C4 6 WHEREAS, on or around May 1, 2006, Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Harris Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4)(c) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County;and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2346 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and Release, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound, Lodge and the County mutually agree to the following: 1. The County and Lodge agree to adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as"Whereas clauses"by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. The settlement documents will consist of the original PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 (Exhibit 1), the amended PUD (Exhibit 2), the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan for the amended PUD (attached as Exhibit "B" to the amended PUD), a phasing diagram entitled "Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Exhi " lbtt= and a Pathway Depiction (Exhibit 4). This Agreement and Releaseexpressly states the ble deviations in development esu standards from the original PUDE , �s�.t,art`expr term in is'Agreement and Release,the original PUD will control. 17, 1 It AM �r — e 3. The settl shall b4—'contingent upon thicei site development plans ("SDPs") that Lodge has su'I+�tted being approves ! the. unty, in accordance with the • rules and regulations of the County as.`well,..as he idevelopment standards set forth in the S _ original PUD and as may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR5283 and AR5284. 4. The County will expedite the review of these three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. The existing environmental impact statement ("EIS") does not need to be amended unless the SDPs are revised to increase wetland impact beyond the impact currently permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five(5%)percent. 5. Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential 2 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2341 condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable workforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment. 6. Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, Lodge shall contribute the sum of$3 million to the County to fund Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements. No impact fee credits shall be given for payment of this sum. Lodge recognizes that the County may request additional contributions up to the proposed road impact fees due for 590 4Wielli ig..units to assist the County in funding the construction of the Vanderbilt po e+,Bridge enhancements.:No such additional contributions shall be required, however, until the ounty''provides evidence that all parties have spent n. $5,500,000.00 on the Vanerbt gq enngs Ari such sums paid over the i N. A, 11 1 initial $3 million shall receixe road lit/pad fee editl NO tig in this Agreement and Release, however, is intend nor shall it restrict,i any' ' the County's ability under applicable laws,ordinances or rules`o rquire1tfty percent(50%)of all transportation impact fees upon approval of the SDPs. These funds shall be refunded to Lodge should Lodge be permanently prevented from commencing construction based upon actions by any governmental entity or any third party. County shall be entitled to retain these funds without any need for reimbursement upon the earlier of(1) Lodge's commencement of construction of the first tower, or(2) the exhaustion of time to file any third party challenge with respect to any matter concerned by this Agreement and the attachments hereto. 7. Lodge and the County agree that the Cocohatchee Bay PUD shall be exempted from the County's PUD sunsetting provisions within the LDC until the Effective 3 2/28/08 revision 011: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth(1/5) of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or_golficOpteme is ever discontinued or abandoned for `,.„\_, ..fir,,- .. 1 any reason, then all of the GC' arrel-including without jfimitation the entire golf course development area, except for those, orfs-allowedk for thee\two (2) residential units, shall ---------,0 ,e 4,, - .,------, ; remain forever as green open s e. ait bne 1rm'}t $pe pe iity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the ed UD Pieierve arcef�-Any e'isions to these restrictive v-,_^, , covenants will require a sup rity vote of the Bold 4f,Coumy Commissioners. 9. To fully satisfy its,o" ligations.,to.const ! .„sidewalks along adjacent off-site public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway ten (10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006) in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2349 (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in Building Height, as defined in Paragraph 3.5 entitled "Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the amended PUD,and Footnote 2 thereto. 11. The maximum number of dwelling units to be constructed by Lodge shall not exceed 590 units. Of these, a maximum of 590 units maybe multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However,two (2)units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as set forth in Section 4.4 in the amended PUD,attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 12. What has been referred_to has ih R-1 apd R-2 Parcels shall be replaced by a single R parcel as set forth in the reviled PUD Master-Plane attached to the amended PUD. The development standards/for he'll?.Parcel-are as,set forth<in Table II of Paragraph 3.5 of the amended PUD(except as raaybe t cpreSsly 004i4e4b ,the Agreement and Release). °.) !fit 13. If there are aadditibnalchanges tile B agllManagement Plan required by federal or state agencies,t ,farther County PUD''�aniendmcnt process shall be required. The County acknowledges that the Mneied.Bald-Fagle¢ anagement Plan is in compliance with the County regulations. Lodge shall be exempt from any County regulations that may be adopted in the future applicable to the Bald Eagle and the County shall defer to the state and federal regulatory permitting process relating to the Bald Eagle Management Plan and issues related thereto. Lodge, however, shall be required to notify the County of any such changes required by state or federal agencies, which will then require an administrative change by the County to any of the previously approved SDPs under review or that have been approved by the County. Any change to the construction sequencing shall be considered an insubstantial change to the SDP. 14. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit 2. 5 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2350 15. Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees, insurers, sureties, agents, attorneys, and representatives of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord.No. 2000.88, the related Bald Eagle Management Plan or any amendment or proposed amendment to the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 or the Bald Eagle Management Plan through the date this Agreement and Release are approved and authorized by the Board for the Chairman's signaturg*itjuding without limitation all Bert Harris Act ,, % "` claims and the claim asserted in Case o.N 05-967-CCs release shall be immediately effective upon the County's approv..al. of`,the 3 SDPs in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in para$ra t 3tof sA rt ern t ` > e e. 'i 16. In the event �of".a"'t itd pat chat nge 4hii,4greement and Release, the County and Lodge agree to work cooperatively to defend..this Agreement. and Release. In this regard, the County and Lodge`shall-each_seek to Income parties to any such challenge proceeding if one or the other of them is not named as a party in the first instance. The County and Lodge shall each bear their own costs and attorney's fees in any such proceeding. 17. If any third party challenge to this Agreement and Release should ever be successful, after exhaustion of all appeals or other requests for review or reconsideration or federal permit conditions prevent Lodge from being able to develop the project consistent with the amended PUD Master Plan then the County agrees to return all money provided by Lodge under this Agreement and Release upon sixty(60)days written notice from Lodge and to allow Lodge to retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. In addition,if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain 6 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2351 required federal permits for the SDPs as referenced in this document and is therefore unable to build this project(exclusive of any federal permits or approvals for docks), Lodge likewise will be entitled to a refund of all money provided under this Agreement and Release within sixty (60) days of written notice from Lodge and Lodge shall retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. 18. Nothing in this Agreement and Release or the settlement documents shall be construed or interpreted to confer any right to docks or any particular number of docks. 19. The Agreement and Release shall be binding upon Lodge's and the County's predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, pre and former employees, owners, present and former elected or appointed ofT)als, insurers, princip ls,and representatives, who shall work together in good faith to accomplish the intent of this Agreement and Release. 20. This Agree7 ent"and Release e, gove�ed by the laws of the State of 11-4 Florida. '°. . '. , 'I 21. This Agreemet�d Release may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement and,Release and`ex cuted with the same formalities I1-0.-- as this Agreement and Release. This Agreement and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. 22. The County and Lodge acknowledge that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision that my exist in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party either based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous language or that the language in question was intended to favor one party or the other. 7 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2352 23. The Effective Date of this Agreement and Release shall be the date upon which the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, executes this document. 24. The County and Lodge acknowledge and assume the risk that additional, different or contrary facts to the facts which they believe exist may now exist or may be discovered after this Agreement and Release has been entered into, and they agree that any such additional, different or contrary facts shall in no way limit, waive, affect or alter this Agreement and Release. The County affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the„pticiertiastu°zed by the PUD and this Agreement and Release or the enforceability Vii-Agreement anie. Lodge affirmatively states that it is not aware of any fats` a o �p it the construction of the project as authorized by the PUD �� ' 1 pr the enforceability of this E 5l P F{ --,) Agreement and Release. ' '1 1. *r \ .4, ) 1.,:i j 25. In the event na breach of this Agreent'aril/Release, either party to this Agreement and Release may enforce its terms in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In this respect, the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No, 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REMAINING SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST;?' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E,$R.00IK, CLERK COLLIER CO TY, F ORIDA . • foil r,. By: Ai By: '" e'eri r auty lerk TOM ENNING,CHAIRM signature onI ,,. WIT 1S, S; i i Signed Name 'PIC-014,04 7: 4`40€41)11(c. Print;, Name , /.... G_ / -, Si•-••(.. Name LODGE . :BOTT ASSOCIATES,LLC / : BY " f.. A / s„�.+..1 ITS: tvnt cls Printed Name 7 /S-----M---__ -------S-‘ \ \ Ap. oved as to form0 1 —1 \ (it \ and \r'�y ' li ! C J. . s l l 1114 - 4\ '' ,71 i /0/ Je ''• A. KlI ow 'L,+f L _ Co y Atto i y ' :T ;. mak.' ., 9 2/28/08 revision