HEX Agenda 12/21/2017 AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., DECEMBER 21, 2017, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES,
FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A
MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN
ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE
CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A
MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL
MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A
PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF
APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—November 16,2017
6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CU-PL20160001875: Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County,
Florida providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow enclosed mini-self
storage warehousing within a General Commercial (C-4) Zoning District within the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay-Receiving Lands pursuant to Section 2.03.03.A.1.c.24 of
the Collier County Land Development Code.The subject property is located on the north
side of Tamiami Trail East, approximately 500 feet west of Trinity Place, in Section
17, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy
Finn,Principal Planner]
B. PUDZ-PL20150001459: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas
map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property
from a Mobile Home (MH) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD)zoning district for the project known as the Antilles RPUD to allow development
of up to 212 multi-family dwelling units or 138 single-family dwelling units on property
located east of SR 951 on Port Au Prince Road, in Section 15, Township 51 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 43.77+/- acres; and by providing an
effective date. [Coordinator:Timothy Finn,Principal Planner]
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. OLD BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
13. ADJORN
CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp
III
November 16, 2017
Page 1 of 69
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, November 16, 2017
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Stan Chrzanowski
Patrick Dearborn
Diane Ebert
Edwin Fryer
Karen Homiak
ABSENT: Joe Schmitt
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
Scott Stone, Assistant County Attorney
Tom Eastman, School District Representative
November 16, 2017
Page 2 of 69
P R O C E E D I N G S
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, good morning. Welcome to the November 16th meeting of the
Collier County Planning Commission.
If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning.
Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent.
And, Mr. Dearborn?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt had notified me. He had a prior commitment, so he has an
excused absence.
Next item up is the addenda to the agenda. I've got one item I want to clarify for this morning, and
then I'll turn to Ray, see if there's anything else.
9A is a PDI. It had come originally to my office. I was requested to move it to the Board -- to the
Planning Commission, so that's why it's here today. And because it was originally at my office, I cannot sit
here during its process, and I'll be sitting in the audience for that one, and Karen will take over.
Ray, do you have anything else? Any other changes?
MR. BELLOWS: No other changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Our December 7th meeting has
been canceled. There's no issues for December 7th, so our next meeting will be December 21st. Since that's
close to the holidays, I've got to make sure we have a quorum. Anybody know if they're not going to make it
on December 21st? Patrick's not, okay.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I'm not sure yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not sure yet? Okay. Well, still good with everybody else?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. I don't know. My family's here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your family's here. Well, bring them. They can fill up the empty seats. If
they disagree with you, I'm sure they'll have fun for the holidays.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chair, I will not be here. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as we have a quorum, we're good. Hopefully -- it's close to
the holidays, so I don't know how much is backed up for that day.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do we have to be in good condition?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're making the assumption that you're always in good condition to
start with, so...
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think maybe we moved faster than I was aware of with respect to
approving the agenda. I'd like to add two items of old business.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
November 16, 2017
Page 3 of 69
COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I could describe them now or just bring them up --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- yeah, if it's old business, just so staff could be ready if we have a
break to respond to anything you might need, what were the two issues?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: They're both brief status reports. And even if the status is "nothing is
going on," I want to keep the matters in front of us, and that's why I'm putting it on the agenda under old
business. The first one has to do with the NIM matter, and the second has to do with the native vegetation
preservation matter. I think in both cases staff was asked to take a look at some things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll see what kind of updates we have when we get to that point,
but thank you.
So that takes us to approval of the minutes. Electronically we were supplied with two sets. We'll do
the first one which is October 5th, 2017. If there are no changes, is there a recommendation from someone for
approval?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries -- there are six of us -- 6-0 today.
The next one of them is the October 19th set of minutes. Same request.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
Okay. That takes us to BCC report and recaps, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. During the November 14th Board of County Commissioners meeting, the
Board approved on their summary agenda the Buckley PUD amendment; that was approved on their
summary agenda, and then the Cleary was approved 5-0 subject to Planning Commission recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Buckley was the PDI, not a PUDA, right? Buckley.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I think -- yeah, that was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a PDI, okay.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay. That takes us to -- I don't have anything for chairman's report today, and there are no consent
agenda items.
***So the first item up in which I'll turn -- I'll read it, and then I'll turn it over to Karen, is Item
PL20160002748. It's the Livingston Village PUD insubstantial change. It's on the east side of Livingston
Road, and it's also known as Marbella.
November 16, 2017
Page 4 of 69
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then disclosures from the Planning Commission. We'll start with Tom.
MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Bob Mulhere.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Emails.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with Mr. Mulhere.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just emails.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Patrick?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just emails.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'll turn it over to Karen, and I'll move back up as soon as
this one's finished.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I'm trying not to break the equipment right now.
Bob Mulhere, for the record, with Hole Montes, here on behalf of the applicant this morning. Also
with me this morning is Jennifer Pazzio (phonetic), who is president of the homeowners association. If you
have some questions that I feel I can't answer, I'm going to defer to Jennifer.
There are a couple of residents or several residents here, too, that will certainly speak if necessary,
but we'll go along the presentation and see how things go.
This is -- the PUD's Livingston Lakes, also known as Livingston Village, also known as Marbella
Lakes. I imagine you know where it is. I have an exhibit here that I can share with you to kind of show you
the overall picture, as soon as I find it. That's what I'm looking for. Again, I'm sure you generally know
where that is but, for the public, you can see that it's located right off of Livingston. Kind of a
rectangular-shaped parcel. It's fully developed.
The topic today or the issue today deals with a requirement in the PUD for street trees which, while
that probably was a very good idea, there have been some unintended consequences associated with those
street trees.
We've worked with staff extensively over the last six or seven months -- and everything got delayed
with Irma -- to come up with some language the staff could support. I want to show you some pictures in
addition to the one that's on the visualizer right now. This is a representative example of where the street
trees are planted, and the right-of-way line runs right here, and then there's a 10-foot drainage and utility
easement that actually extends another 10 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. This is about a 4-foot clear
area from the edge of the sidewalk all within the right-of-way. And you can see as you look down that those
street trees are planted both very close to the driveway and very close to the sidewalk and run actually within
the HOA common area utility easement.
There's a typical lot line or lot plan here. And that just shows you the dimensions; the 50-foot
right-of-way, the sidewalk, the 4-foot area, and then the 10-foot utility easement within which the street trees
are planted.
I just have -- I have a couple -- hello. I have a couple of other pictures that I just wanted to show
you. That kind of shows you how close the street trees are planted. There are some trees within the common
area as well, but all of them are within the utility easement or very close to the sidewalk, and they're very
close to one another as well.
In the narrative I summarized the issues. Many of the trees, unfortunately, were planted without the
root barrier. Now, as it turns out today, there's some discussion about whether root barriers are even
functionally appropriate because they tend to keep the root system more shallow. They don't get to extend as
far, and there's some question as to whether that contributes to these trees going down in a storm event or a
high wind event, although that might protect them from encroaching into the utilities and things and buildings
November 16, 2017
Page 5 of 69
and driveways and sidewalks.
The bottom line is that the live oak is simply not an appropriate tree to be planted in a very small
front yard or in close proximity to utilities and sidewalks and driveways and houses.
The homeowners association has already had to spend a significant amount of money to repair
sidewalks and driveways. They haven't had significant damage yet to the utilities, but trust me, that is
coming. I know that from personal experience because I had a really big live oak tree in my small front yard.
And after Irma, there's about a 15- to $16,000 repair bill to repair the electric and water lines that were torn up
when the tree went down, not to mention the roof. So that's just a personal experience.
MR. REISCHL: And, just for the record, you don't live in Marbella?
MR. MULHERE: I do not, no. I live in another community with a small yard.
So the trees were planted within the right-of-way or adjacent to the CUE and only a few feet at most
from the sidewalk, water and sewer lines. The plan -- the landscape plan that was approved actually called
for a separation of 12-and-a-half feet between the trees, yet many are much closer.
The plan called for a significant -- let's see. The plan required that those trees be planted at least 7.5
feet from utilities, but they're actually planted within the utility easement.
And as I mentioned already, the association actually went out on two different occasions and
tested -- did some random digging to see if root barriers were installed and, yes, some root barriers were
installed but most were not. In the sample, I think there was a couple planted, and if they did 15 or 16, the
majority did not have root barriers.
As I said, that may or may not be a good thing today based on what we found out from the storm, but
the idea was to put root barriers in to prevent the intrusion into the utilities.
So while the idea of a street tree program is laudable, these are the wrong trees and also the design
simply does not allow for a very large canopy tree planted along the street when you have a utility easement
and utilities planted also right along the street as well as sidewalks.
Some communities have already put a stop to using live oaks in these smaller lots. I know the City
of Fort Myers has done that.
I want to just mention a couple of things. We had a neighborhood information meeting in August,
and there was about 31 people in attendance. There were a lot of really good questions particularly related to
is this going to cost me money as a homeowner. The answer is no. The association's paying for the removal.
Some of the trees will likely be retained. There are some that are not problematic; they're not going
to take those out. But obviously in the platted single-family areas and where they're close to the utility lines,
it makes sense to remove them.
There was a settlement, so there are funds in place from the developer to pay for this. The language
that was finally agreed upon, working with Scott Stone particularly towards the end, is as follows. And I sent
that to each of you so that you had the most recent version.
What I want to point out is that there's some language in here that requires all single-family homes to
meet the minimum planting requirements in the LDC. Most do; the vast majority do. There are a handful
that may need another either palm tree or canopy tree planted somewhere either on the lot or in the rear of the
lot.
The association will then submit an insubstantial change to the approved landscape plan showing the
removal and showing any lots that are required to have another tree to meet the minimum code requirements.
I guess what I wanted to also mention is that this has nothing to do with the exterior perimeter buffer,
which is really quite nice and will be retained 100 percent. This is all internal. So nobody driving by and
nobody that doesn't live in Marbella Lakes is affected by this.
There's also a requirement that Marbella HOA, at their expense, provide for those few that don't meet
the code, the additional tree to meet the code. So the homeowner will not have any expense borne as a result
of this removal.
I really think it's pretty cut and dry. I'm happy to answer any questions. Jennifer's here to answer
any questions. There are folks registered to speak or willing to speak, but I know you have a busy schedule,
so I'm open to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Anybody have any questions or -- go ahead.
November 16, 2017
Page 6 of 69
COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, thank you for sending me the redliner.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I noticed from it, though, that there was a typo in 20 -- 2.9K, the word
should have been "lot," and instead it came out as o-o-t, oot. So you might want to make that -- unless this is
property in Canada.
MR. MULHERE: I'm looking for that. It looks like it was corrected in my version, but if it isn't I
will correct it.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mine doesn't say that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, maybe it happened during the redlining somehow.
MR. MULHERE: That's possible.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. That's not in there; that's fine.
Moving on, let's see. When you take trees out, canopy trees, does that result in no increase of
stormwater retention? What is the effect of the absence of large trees with root systems on stormwater?
MR. MULHERE: I don't know that there's any effect. It has an effect on the use of water for
irrigation. These trees, these oak trees, require a significant amount of -- I've heard 50 gallons a day per tree.
But that's probably not every day. Maybe three days a week or something. But I'm not a landscape architect,
so I wouldn't qualify myself as an expert.
I don't know that there's any impact. There's a master stormwater plan that is required there, and
these trees -- the county would not allow those trees to be planted as such that they would have a negative
impact on the stormwater system, to my knowledge.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. The original PUD was granted with the canopy trees in the -- in
the common area, if you will, or the HOA property, as a way of excusing the necessity of putting them in the
small lots, which I understand completely.
Now, with the removal of these trees and the replacement of only some but not all, I wonder what
that does to the compromise that was reached back then.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: And along with that question, I'm just surmising that your settlement
with GL did not involve enough cash to fully replace the trees, and so these are homeowner expense items; is
that what the problem is?
MR. MULHERE: No. There's two things: One, any tree that has to be replaced to meet the
minimum code requirements. Like every other redevelopment, there are minimum requirements. And
certainly they exceed the minimum requirements in common areas; they exceed the minimum requirements
in their exterior buffers, but these trees that were planted, in some occasions they did go towards meeting
those minimum requirements. There's very few; a handful of lots. Maybe 10 maximum. So but in those lots
the HOA will pay to replace them but with a more appropriate tree.
What the code allows you to do is replace a canopy tree with a grouping of three palms. Almost
every lot has the three palms. There are just a handful where they don't have them.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So the minimums are going to be met.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then there was a NIM. Was there an electronic recording of it?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes. We recorded it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That wasn't provided to us.
MR. MULHERE: Well, we sent it to staff; I don't know.
MR. REISCHL: Yeah. It's in City View. I didn't receive any requests for it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, we had this out at our last meeting, and I think Judy followed up
to ask which Planning Commissioners wanted the electronic recording and I, for one, said I do, and I just
would ask staff to be sure in the future -- it's less necessary in this kind of an unsubstantial thing. So I
wouldn't change my vote, but in the future please be sure to forward those electronic wave files or MP4s, or
whatever they are, on the thumb drive or otherwise so that I could listen to it. Okay?
MR. REISCHL: Got it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the other point I wanted to make here, there's a lot of repetition in
November 16, 2017
Page 7 of 69
the material that was sent to us. And, you know, when we get hundreds of pages, I expect that there is a
reason why I'm getting all this material, and I need to read it and study it. I guess this is more directed to
staff, but -- and I think our Chairman had made this point in the past, and possibly other Planning
Commissioners, that unnecessary repetition, first of all, puts the burden on us to figure out why we're reading
this identical material again, and it also is a time waster.
So, please, staff, when possible, eliminate the repetitive material.
And that's all I have, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nobody. Fred, do you have another speaker that signed up?
MR. REISCHL: We have a speaker. It says GL Homes. I'm not sure if there are other GL Homes
projects here, or is this --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, there are.
MR. REISCHL: Chris Lecca, are you on this or on another project?
MR. LECCA: Another project.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, okay.
MR. REISCHL: Another project. Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The staff report?
MR. REISCHL: Just to keep it brief, we agree with what the applicant has stated; that these are not
necessary except for a few trees, and those trees will be replaced at the HOA's expense. The other trees are
optional, so they could be replaced or they could be not replaced. And that's typical for most subdivisions,
and we think it's not a -- it's not objectionable for this project to be the same. So we --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So in the end you'll work it out, and the Land Development Code
will be followed.
MR. REISCHL: It will follow the Land Development Code, and we have no objections to the
change.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Anybody?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. One question for staff. In light of Hurricane Irma
and all the damage that was done and all the trees, like along Livingston, that were just simply stood back up
so they can fall again during the next storm, and in light of the fact that storms are getting more frequent and
stronger, which is what I've read most everywhere, is anybody thinking of revisiting the entire landscape
ordinance, root barriers, the type of trees?
Bob's right about live oaks getting massive, and people tend to plant them too close to everything
because, at the start, we want everything to look very nice, and people forget that they grow, so...
MR. REISCHL: Since Bob gave an example from his yard, I live in the Estates; my live oak trees
definitely do not have root barriers and have plenty of room to spread out, and no damage to any of them. So
it may be something to do with landscaping or small -- whether a root barrier itself or just the confines of a
small yard.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I live in --
MR. REISCHL: We'll talk to Pam Lulich on this.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I live in a development; our oak trees did not fair
well.
MR. REISCHL: I understand.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No root barriers; older trees.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mike?
MR. BOSI: Chair. Mike Bosi, Zoning and Planning director.
Yeah, that's been part of the discussion internally that, especially with our landscape folks, we
need -- and it's not just recognized by the impacts of Irma. Prior to Irma there's been a lot of discussion as
what is the appropriateness for our canopy tree -- the evaluation of the list of trees that are acceptable. And I
think we have to, with this more informed perspective, provide for a better understanding and analysis and
allocation of what we believe are the appropriate mix of trees to be able to be utilized for landscape purposes
November 16, 2017
Page 8 of 69
and individual neighborhoods because of the impacts that it can create. And, you're right, the frequencies and
the intensities of these storms are only anticipated to increase.
So with that recognition, I think that the placement, location, and type of trees are all something that
we need scrutinized, and obviously that scrutiny will be brought back to the Planning Commission for your
recommendations and evaluations, then the Board of County Commissioners for theirs as well.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Mike.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you.
Any other questions or -- does anybody wish to speak, or are you all set?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I think we're set.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Can I make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion carries.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Have a good day.
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Karen.
***The next item up is 9B. It's PL20160002360. It's the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill
District. It's at the corner of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures; we'll start with Tom.
MR. EASTMAN: None other than those in the public record.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich, and I think that's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have also spoken with Mr. Yovanovich, and I've gotten emails.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have talked to Mr. Yovanovich. I've talked to staff. I've had this case
come up in presentations I make in different parts of the county where citizens have expressed concern over
what was actually going in there. I don't -- that was before all the facts were known, but that's the only part of
that disclosure from the public that I can add.
Diane -- or, Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just emails.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Wayne, do you want to start us out?
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates
and representing the applicant today.
Our team consists of Rich Yovanovich, the land-use attorney; Johnny English and Bruce Layman are
both here from Barron Collier Companies/Peninsula Engineering representing the project owner; and then
Norm Trebilcock prepared our traffic analysis and is here if you have any questions related to traffic.
November 16, 2017
Page 9 of 69
The subject today is to amend an existing commercial subdistrict in the Comprehensive Plan. The
property's located at the corner -- northeast corner of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. It's
partially developed with the former Sweetbay anchor grocery store and retail center. There's a three-story
office building at the corner of the intersection, and then there's some other retail and office that's been
constructed within the project.
The project is separated into kind of a north and south portion. North of Panther Lane is also part of
the subdistrict and the existing PUD. It's been developed entirely with office uses.
And Panther Lane, incidentally, runs into the back of Pine Ridge Middle School, and it's a signalized
intersection.
So, in essence, what we're attempting to do is to amend the subdistrict to make it a mixed-use district
in order to add up to 375 multifamily rental units on the parcel.
And so we have added language that's in your backup material that's underlined, and we've also
added a reference to the preserve, because as we go to a mixed-use, the preserve requirements actually
slightly increase. But the preserves we have on site are already incumbered in conservation easements, and
there's really not an opportunity to meaningfully recreate some small additional preserve. So we've added the
reference to the existing preserve number in our subdistrict; that's why you find that there.
The rental community, we believe, is not only a compatible land use; we think it's well located to
serve the community. It's an infill project. It has good access to other facilities. There's existing shopping not
only within the center but nearby.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not picking up as clear.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Sorry about that. I'll stand closer. So we believe it represents a really good
location. Mike Timmerman created a market analysis and analyzed the effect of having 375 more rental units
in this location in North Naples, so he looked at several other communities. His conclusions were that there
was an adequate demand for more units in the marketplace.
We believe that the request also responds well to the direction that the County Commission has been
hearing from its housing folks that we need to have a more diverse group of housing choices in the
community, and we believe that this option to add residential in this location would do that.
Staff's analysis recommended that you transmit this to the state, and we hope you concur with that. I
would say that we have a concurrent PUD amendment that's in and processing, and it's coming to you -- I'm
not sure we have a specific date, but it's soon. There were some minor comments that were resubmitted to
the county recently. But I can show you what that looks like. In terms of the master plan, we're making
provisions for that.
It disappeared from my screen, but I can see it there.
So that's oriented -- north is to your left, and that represents the existing master plan for the project.
What we've done is made provisions for the residential to be located in two portion of that project. Here and
here (indicating).
So those two tracts have a note that were added to the master plan that would say those two could
have residential only, and that's largely because that's the only two vacant. One would be a reclamation of the
existing or portion of the existing retail center, and then there's a vacant out block that's on Goodlette Road,
but those represent the only two areas where residential development would occur.
The site has existing infrastructure in place. As you're aware, there's no capacity issues with regard to
any of the level-of-service analysis that was prepared as part of the plan amendment.
We think it's a good use as an option for this property and hope you can support it. I can answer any
questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And before we get into questions, there was one disclosure I forgot,
so I want to make it before we go too far. I talked to two residents of, I think it's called Northgate to the south
side of Pine Ridge Road.
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were concerned about your height issues, traffic, and I can't remember
what else right now offhand. But most of the issues they were talking about were PUD related. So anyway, I
just wanted to disclose that.
November 16, 2017
Page 10 of 69
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I would note for the record, too, that there is a height limitation of four
stories over the parking that's part of the plan amendment language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is a change from the current plan.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, I'll turn to the Planning Commission. Are there any questions
on the PUDA amendment? Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have some, and you may ask me to defer to the PUD side of this at a
later time, but I think better to raise them now than later because I think that they are fairly substantive.
The two issues that I came away with concerns, that is to say, were the height issue and the traffic
issue. And I see a reference to four stories over parking.
Could you tell me what the maximum building height sought to be permitted is from the very tippy
top, including the aboveground parking. How high will those buildings be above ground level?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that off the top of my head. But give us a few minutes, and I'll try to
get you that number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you want to know, I can tell you. Is that okay, Wayne, or do you want
to -- I mean, I have your PUD submittal right in front of me.
MR. ARNOLD: I was going to say, I was just going to pull up the PUD.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: There was a reference to 50 feet, but I couldn't tell if that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the maximum height requested for retail buildings in the new PUD is
the same as the old, 40 feet, and the asking for office and financial institution is the same as the old, three
stories not to exceed 50 feet, but then they have a table. They're looking for architectural features at 60 feet,
and their actual maximum building height in the table for the residential, zoned 55 and actual 60.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does that include above-ground parking?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the actual at 60 would have to, yes, unless Wayne's telling me he's
got some other thing he's thinking.
MR. ARNOLD: No. I put the table from the proposed PUD on the visualizer, and Mark is correct,
the multifamily is at 55 zoned height; actual height would be 60.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
The NIM survey -- summary, rather, I found to be wanting when I compared it to the transcript that
had been furnished, and thank you for furnishing a transcript. It's very helpful. In addition to the traffic and
the height, there were other points that were raised by the residents that were not brought forth in the
summary, but I don't think it's of any consequence since we had a transcript, so I won't belabor that point.
Now, yesterday the County Commission approved the 2017 AUIR, and I'm not suggesting that you
need to be in compliance with that today, but I am suggesting that the contents of the AUIR with respect to
traffic on Pine Ridge is informative and certainly raises concerns in some cases in the next six years and in
one case immediately as being -- that certain segments of Pine Ridge will be deficient, either are deficient
today or will be deficient in six years, and that's over toward Livingston.
And, you know, I don't know that the law prohibits us from considering that. I'd be interested to
hear. Mr. Yovanovich tells me that I'm not supposed to consider that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Just for the record, Rich Yovanovich.
When the PUD comes forward, the TIS associated with the PUD does reference the 2017 AUIR. So
you will have that at the PUD level to analyze, and so you'll have all that information.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. But for the purposes of now, we can consider -- I realize
this is transmittal --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but these are substantive issues that I think everybody concerned
should -- I would like them to have my concerns expressed now rather than later.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And Mr. Trebilcock will be prepared to answer questions you have on that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: And so I worry about the Goodlette intersection which has -- in six
years it's going to be deficient, and Livingston, which I know is farther away, is already deficient.
And, you know, this is something that we can almost sort of take judicial notice of. We all have
November 16, 2017
Page 11 of 69
practical experience, real-life experience with Pine Ridge, and it's a mess. And it may not have been a mess
in 1999, and it may not have been a mess in 2015, although it was getting messy, but, you know, when I look
at this project, I like the idea of mixed-use but I'm very, very concerned about what is going to happen on
Pine Ridge.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock. I'm a
certified planner and professional engineer, and my firm prepared the Traffic Impact Statement for the
project.
So I'm kind of maybe covering a couple of your questions here. The section that you're talking about
in terms of the deficient section of Pine Ridge Road would be to the east, like you said, Livingston Road.
And really up to that point, our impact to the level of services is below the thresholds to really look to analyze
that portion of the link, because we have a small impact, and that's really what we look at. It's kind of the
significance test is what we look at. So our volumes really diminish significantly.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do understand that, and I accept that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I also think you need to acknowledge that Pine Ridge is Exit 107
off of I-75, and you're going to have people who are trying to get to 41 who are going to have to pass through
Livingston as well as down the line where the traffic is undoubtedly going to be greater when the time comes.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't think that's a factor that can be simply ignored.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. Okay. And also, the intersection, too, that is something that we do
look at in more detail in the -- when you do the -- say, the site development or platting stage. Staff will have
us analyze that intersection for any capacity issues as such as well.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that's good, that's a good thing, but I think we all analyze it when
we drive along it.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: And it sort of speaks loudly for itself, I would say.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure, sure.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like just to clarify something.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're in here today to ask for a GMP agreement to increase the density
that could be provided in that location from 245 residential to 375. I think that opens the door for us to
certainly be able to question -- I don't care if it's five years or 10 years down the road, the ability for Pine
Ridge Road to handle that over all.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you may want to defer to the PUD, but we're not necessarily bound by
that. I can assure you when Ned gets done, I have a lengthy discussion on transportation that I'll have as well,
and I intend for all that stuff to be carefully considered, so...
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Also, my next point has to do with the Arthrex development. Could you tell us a little bit about that
and your analysis of how that might or might not impact the Goodlette traffic at Pine Ridge.
MR. TREBILCOCK: As far as down in the southern portion? Well, what the county does do, they
will, what they call, bank trips, and so they'll look at trips of future developments that are coming in, and then
the growth rates we use to account for future projects as they're developing along the line. So those are taken
into account from that standpoint.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I -- Mr. Fryer, are you referring to the proposed new hotel --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- or are you talking about the existing PUD or both? I'm just -- I wasn't
sure.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not familiar in detail with what Arthrex is planning. But the
November 16, 2017
Page 12 of 69
Arthrex situation was mentioned in the NIM, and so I'm asking about whatever is going on or in the works up
there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. All right. Because Norm, coincidentally, did that analysis as well,
and he did an analysis of the apartment -- I'm sorry -- the office building, and the most current PUD
amendment is to add a hotel to the list of uses on the west side of the road, and that hotel will be to service
people that are already coming to visit Arthrex for training, for all different types of things.
So I think that Norm will be able to testify, but that probably will actually be a reduction because
these people will now be staying on the campus and not having to travel to the campus on the road system.
But I'll let Norm -- because we just had a NIM on that one the other day.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. So just in follow-up to that the proposed hotel addition there for Arthrex
actually will be trip neutral, because we're going to reduce an accompanying amount of office square footage
there at Arthrex. So it will be trip neutral. And it's actually conservative, because we don't use quite to the
degree the internal capture that we realistically see. We just use the standard ones that the county accepts
there, so we're good there.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Let's see. I'm going to clear my traffic questions, and then I'm
going to double back, and I have a question for Wayne.
The comparison which is drawn in the materials is to what could have happened had the property
been fully built out and the allowances for traffic had that happened but, of course, that didn't happen. The
commercial penetration at that area seems to have peaked or maxed, and perhaps that's why we're being
asked to allow for residential.
So I would be very interested to know what the actual p.m. peak and 24-hour two-way traffic current
numbers are. Because I'm not saying that they're the only thing that should be considered, but I think it's
worth knowing what those numbers are.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By current numbers, are you asking for the numbers that this proposal is
supported by or the numbers that were provided in the TIS in 1999 that the rest of you did not get?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Really neither one, Mr. Chairman. The --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm trying to get a clarification.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: The 2015 was then, and then 1999 was way before then. I'm talking
about today, now, has there been a study to determine what we all know, I think we all know, that Pine Ridge
is heavily trafficked?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. What we did -- part of the traffic study we did and that we're
resubmitting with the update to the 2017 AUIR for the PUDA includes what would be the existing threshold
of development on the property today versus what is being proposed. So we do have that number, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, you have it. I'd like it.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. It's in the study. It's -- the p.m. peak hour two-way volume is 529 trips
is what we had in the study that was --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: P.m. peak is 529?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, in the current study that you have. And the proposed net buildout is
698 trips. So it's 169 is the additional trips.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I missed that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No problem.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's see. Oh, there were a number of -- these are for Mr. Arnold, I
think.
In the transcript of the NIM which, again, was very helpful, there were some statements made, and I
just would like to ask for followup on those beginning at Line 9 on Page 44 of the materials we have
electronically -- I hope that corresponds to the paper -- Wayne, you said, I hear -- trust me -- I'll tell you right
now, I'm hearing every one of you, and I'll take your concerns back, and we'll talk about them, and we'll see
how we can address most, if not all, of these concerns. And so my question is if you wouldn't mind
November 16, 2017
Page 13 of 69
summarizing what, if anything, you've been able to do.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, one of the things we did is reduced our request from 400 units to 375 units.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Any other?
MR. ARNOLD: Not specifically that I can think of. I mean, we have a PUD that we've
added -- that's a little farther along, so there have been adjustments to address staff comments, but with regard
to the traffic comments, et cetera, I think, you know, Norm can certainly get into some of those things, but
there were operational questions about turning movements and things onto Goodlette-Frank Road that came
up in the meeting, and I know that Norm has had further discussion with staff and has looked at those issues
as well. We don't believe those are issues of concern for the project.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then an unknown speaker, who appeared to be a small business
owner probably renting commercial space, said he just spent almost $200,000 on his buildout, and he said,
what happens to me when you tear down my building?
And you said, we would make certain provisions either to relocate you or -- and I'm paraphrasing,
otherwise, to make you whole, is what you said to him. And I was wondering if you could add any more
meat on those bones what specifically you might do to provide support to people who have invested in the
buildouts.
MR. ARNOLD: The person that responded to that comment was David Gensen with Barron Collier
Companies. There was a tenant who had built out their unit. And I don't know -- every tenant has a lease,
and I don't know the terms of each of those leases, but there are provisions for exiting your lease early or, if
the project owner terminates the lease in advance, there are notices given, and there may be financial
provisions in those as well. I'm not familiar with the details of the lease.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. The transcript ascribed those comments to you, Wayne.
MR. ARNOLD: I think that was incorrect.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Fair enough.
Okay. So do you or Mr. Yovanovich have anything in addition that you could say to give some more
comfort to businesspeople who have invested considerably in their buildout, how they'd be protected?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. All I know is the same situation would occur in almost any strip
center that you have in Collier County, that the owner certainly can exercise their rights to utilize their
property.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, this is a very early stage, and so I think it's a good thing
that we get these things out --
MR. ARNOLD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- because you're going to be coming back to us one or two times, and I
will be asking these same questions. So it's really not necessary that you have exact solutions now, but I
expect --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Because it's an unknown speaker, I'm not even sure which space it is. So let
me get with Mr. Gensen, figure out where that is, if that tenant is still there. I don't know. We'll figure it all
out, and I'll make sure I can report back to the Planning Commission that issue.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Wayne, one more thing. You said, well, the alternative is that
he, the owner, continues to build out all of the commercial development that's currently unbuilt, which has an
additional traffic impact, but you get no say in it, sorry. That was your response to --
MR. ARNOLD: I think that, too, might have been attributed to someone other than me.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: You didn't say that?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't think so, but I recall hearing that. But I think that goes back to the issue, we
have an existing PUD, when we have an existing comprehensive plan that allows this to be developed at 100
percent retail and office. It hasn't been 100 percent built out, but the owner could continue and may continue
to go ahead and build additional retail and office.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: One would suspect it a financial loss, though, under current conditions,
wouldn't you think? I mean, why else would we be here?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I don't know, other than I know that there has been interest by multifamily
developers, but there's also been interest by other large format retailers for taking over the Sweetbay space.
November 16, 2017
Page 14 of 69
So I think this is truly an option of development that makes sense.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, forgive me for associating that comment with you, but the
transcript did. I'm glad to hear you didn't say it because, frankly, I don't think it's true. I think the
homeowners have plenty to say about this, particularly when it comes before the county commissioners.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think -- and the context of that comment would be that if nothing changed
by adding the residential, there could still be more retail and office built, which contributes to the background
traffic.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else from the Planning Commission at this time?
(No response.)
MR. ARNOLD: You want Mr. Trebilcock?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I want to go through in order, and I have, I don't know, about half a
dozen different documents to talk about.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let's first start with the justification for the proposed amendment, and
that starts on Page 7 of 11 for the -- one of the -- the first few documents in the book. And you have a
sentence in there that says, the proposed residential component of this subdistrict is anticipated to follow the
success of Orchid Run. Then the second paragraph goes on and talks about, you're in a high employment
center, such as Naples Community Hospital to the north, Naples Community Hospital downtown, multiple
shopping areas, Naples High School, Pine Ridge Middle School, and many other employment locations.
It seems the insinuation by referencing those are the service workers, teachers, and other people that
may live in facilities with that kind of employment, yet I was talking to Sue Filson -- Falkner -- Sue Filson's
another Sue in the county -- Sue Falkner yesterday in a staff meeting, and she indicated -- and I didn't say
anything to her about it at the time, but I thought I'd double-check today -- that she had -- I thought she had
said that the price points were going to be 2,500 a month for those apartments.
And if you tell me that's not true, I'll ask her to clarify then. But is that something that you can
verify?
MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure which document you're looking at, Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm looking at the Page 9 electronic -- we have 328 pages in just this
submittal, not the other documents. Page 9. And I can't tell you necessarily who put it there. Let me see. I
think it's the --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Staff report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report, yeah. It would be Page 7 of the staff report, Page 9 of the
electronic data. But I think the question's simpler than that, Wayne. What's the price points for the rentals?
MR. ARNOLD: I'll have to look at the market analysis. I don't know that number off the top of my
head, Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if you're trying to get into a price point that Sue had
indicated she had possibly heard, 140 percent of median income is -- and it would put them at a yearly
household income around $90,000. That would justify a $2,000-a-month rent. So if you're at 2,500, you're
even above 140 AMI, which is a pretty high standard. I'm not saying it's bad or good. I'm just suggesting that
it may not be that employment market that you referenced in the paragraph I pointed out to you.
On that same page, the 375 multifamily dwelling units correspond to an estimated population of 900
full-time residents. That's going to be part of the discussion that I'll have with Norm, I guess, since he's
representing you for transportation. I need to know how many of those people are going to actually be
traveling east of Livingston Road. And the reason that's important is, if you've got 900 people whose only
access or primary access to I-75, which is a link that a lot of people use and it's commonly used, is going to
be going east of Livingston to get to it on Pine Ridge. That's the failed section of Pine Ridge Road, and that's
the piece that I'll need some clarification on.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I? This is one of the rare times where I get to actually be a fact witness.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means you can be cross-examined then.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Please come at it.
November 16, 2017
Page 15 of 69
I live in the Pine Ridge community, and I could tell you, when I want to go to I-75, I do not go on
Pine Ridge Road. I go up to -- I usually -- here is my route. I cut across Vanderbilt Road, and I go that way
to get to I-75 up on Immokalee Road, and I think that most of us who live in that area know the path of least
resistance is to not take Pine Ridge Road to go to I-75.
And in those rare instances, once every 10 years or so that I actually decide to go over to Miami, I get
on I-75 at either Golden Gate Parkway or others. We -- those of us who are in that area know that the best
access to I-75 is not Pine Ridge Road.
So I don't think we'll -- I think people will recognize we will not be adding a lot of traffic going on
that section of Pine Ridge Road or using Pine Ridge Road to go east to get to I-75.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to put a restriction in all your rental agreements that says
you cannot use Pine Ridge Road?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. But I'm telling you, Mr. Strain, we all are creatures of understanding
what the roadway system is, and we all figure out --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why are those creatures on that road every night blocking us up for
multiple passes trying to get through the light systems in trying to get to I-75? What are those creatures -- is
it that memory doesn't sink in? They can't learn that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just telling you where the residential people are and how we get there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm telling you I don't think your -- I understand what you said you, but
I don't think it carries much weight. But I appreciate your comments.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, I'm going to bite my tongue.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So he's blocking up Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The GMPA seems to be written in a manner contrary to what was told to
the public at the NIM and what I had heard this project to be.
Basically, you were going to remain with the square footage that was built to date as a usable square
footage and that the remaining -- I think it -- you claim it's been 70,000 -- was not going to be built. In return
you were going to build your residential.
And I noticed the header on the GMPA advertisement doesn't reflect that, neither does the language
in the GMP, and neither does the PUD that you guys are processing.
So can you explain that? Because in the NIM you told -- Mr. Arnold -- well, Norm Trebilcock
prepared the analysis and, as I indicated, part of the square footage of commercial will go away to
accommodate the new residential. So there's a tradeoff here.
So now -- but the GMPA says you want the existing commercial and office plus an additional
density for residential. How does that work?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, the PUD does have a conversion factor in it, Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a different animal, and that's a whole 'nother mess we're going
to get into because, basically, what you're saying is, by that, you're not dropping 70,000 square feet of
commercial that was the original -- what I think was -- everybody thought was the original intent or a lot of
people may have, but you're going to keep as much of it as you don't build out in residential to some
mysterious traffic figure that converts it.
MR. ARNOLD: The comment that was made at the neighborhood information meeting was made in
the context of we really can't just put 375 more units and all of the commercial on the same site. We will
have to displace some of the existing retail/commercial in order to build this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know -- when I met with you-all yesterday and I suggested that the
intent of the GMPA seemed different than what I'd previously heard was going to happen with this property,
you-all didn't object to my comment on that, so I didn't prepare today to argue that point. I was just assuming
you'd have corrected the GMPA to say whatever the current existing commercial on the ground is is what you
intend to keep the square footage, and you're asking to replace the additional commercial square footage with
X number of units.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we do it this way, because that's not the intent. The intent was to
remain traffic neutral. And why don't we just put the PUD conversion formula into the GMPA so that we can
ensure neutrality and not have to lock in our only option as commercial. I mean, the desire is you have a
November 16, 2017
Page 16 of 69
different option of uses in the property and remain traffic neutral.
So if we decide to do 100 units instead of 375 units, there would be less of a reduction in the
commercial uses that are allowed on the property. That's the context as I read it in the minutes, because I
wasn't there. But that's always been the context. And we have no objection to adding, if you want to, a
conversion formula into the GMP amendment so that we can assure the transportation neutrality we've
always been saying we're willing to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I -- because this is the GMPA and I happen to have access to
the PUD and was able to see some of these other issues you've got in there. I don't know if staff is readily
prepared to certify or guarantee to us that the conversion ratio you've come up with is adequate, and that's the
question I'm going to have of transportation, both yours and ours, if Mike or Trinity or somebody's here from
our department. They're both here. Good.
Yeah, that's a whole 'nother discussion I wasn't prepared for today because I didn't really expect the
pushback because you didn't give me any yesterday. I figured if you had an objection to that, you'd tell me,
and I'd be able to find the research. You could have yours.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Maybe I didn't understand the total context. I thought your question was in
the context of are we remaining traffic neutral, and I don't think we ever said that we're absolutely
guaranteeing we're getting rid of commercial and going the apartment route. We had said we wanted to add
apartments as an option if that becomes the better option for this center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't use the words "transportation neutral." I can assure you that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the way I understood it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the way you might have understood it, but that's not what I was
asking. And I thought when your client indicated -- I thought your client indicated an agreement that was a
discrepancy, but he didn't vocalize that; I just saw his head move up and down, so...
We'll still get into that before the day's over, so...
My next point that I wanted to ask Wayne and maybe -- I brought this up to you yesterday. And if
Norm wants to answer this particular one question before I get into transportation, in the NIM, unknown
speaker says, and in addition to that, there's two churches, and they had to have police to let people get in and
out of the those two churches every single Sunday morning.
You're talking about putting 400 apartments in. Who is going to direct the traffic to get these people
in and out of the complex?
One unknown speaker said God, and then Mr. Trebilcock, who I think was the substitute for God,
said, well, that -- again, that's an important thing that we can address specifically but, you know -- yes, Ray,
back in the corner. And I think he was probably talking to the gentleman I spoke to yesterday from the North
Brook Apartments. Ray -- I forgot his last name.
But, anyway, what did you mean by that? What are you going to do to satisfy that concern to the
extent you intended it to those folks at that NIM?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Yes, I probably never said so much in two dashes, I guess, when I look
at the transcript back, and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how'd you know to look at the transcript?
MR. TREBILCOCK: What's that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How'd you know to look at the transcript to answer your question?
MR. TREBILCOCK: I just got a copy of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I had met yesterday, and I asked them to make sure -- and I meet
with the applicant on one -- there's one goal, and that's to find out -- let them know what I'm going to be
looking for today so you-all can come prepared to answer the questions as best as possible.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which works both ways.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. No. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I expected some of the pushback on this GMPA language. That would
have gone further yesterday in my questioning. But go ahead.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. And, by the way, I'm -- I also live in the area there, and I live in the
November 16, 2017
Page 17 of 69
Autumn Woods community, which is just to the north, and I'm a member of the North Naples United
Methodist Church as well -- so I'm familiar with the area -- which is the church just to the north.
So the intention of answering the question is really related to these are operational issues typically,
but I can get more in-depth on that -- is currently the church, which is a good quarter -- nearly a quarter mile
to the north of us, when the church uses the sheriff's deputies to help on Sunday, it's for a very finite period of
time for folks to be able to come in and out of the church itself.
And so there's -- that's off-peak periods, and our development, though, to the south we do have a
signal there right at Panther Lane. So there's really no interference. They've got a good quarter mile away.
So if cars queue up for coming in and out of the church off of Goodlette-Frank Road, there's no impact to
ourselves.
So there's really not a big negative interface, but that's typically the type of operational questions that
we'll address with staff when we get into doing the Site Development Plan part of it, and that was really the
intent. And I think it was discussed prior in the meeting as well, that kind of thing, so that's what -- that
continuance there. And, you know, maybe I was drowned out by the laughter from the prior speaker about,
you know, the God comment as well, you know, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but, Norm, it says, well, that -- again, that's an important thing that
we can address specifically. So in this in-depth review that you're currently going through for the PUD, how
did you address that issue? Or did you? What did you consider addressing the issue? Because I can't tell by
what you said here. Are you going to have people standing there every day and patrol the place?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, sir. Again, I think this is an -- unfortunately, not complete of what the
answer was there. And, again, this is a type of thing that we do. It is an important issue, and it's something
that does get addressed as part of the site development portion of it.
I certainly can address it now, too, in any response for the PUD amendment. And, again, they really
are separate. They're separate areas, so there's really no interference, so there is not a significant problem.
Again, from my own personal experience, I don't see that as an issue at all and then from my professional as
well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not doing anything above the minimum standards required for
your SDP submittal?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In order to respond to that speaker --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, no, we would in the SDP, exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you're going to respond to that speaker by meeting the
conditions for transportation subject to the SDP minimum standards?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, because we don't see there's an operational problem with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you didn't say that to the gentleman. You just simply
said -- you insinuated you're going to do more than above, but it doesn't look like you're going to.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. But I believe -- my recollection would be is -- I think it was a bit
drowned out in that thing, but, you know, again, I don't see an issue with that as -- operationally.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did you get a copy of the 1999 TIS that I sent to Mr.
Yovanovich at his request yesterday so that you, in a little bit, when I get done with some of the other stuff,
I'd like to ask you questions.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir, yes. I have that as a reference, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It wasn't in our packet, and I had to ask Sue to find it for me and
provide it to me, so...
MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Soon I'll have some issues on that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The height, Wayne, you're asking -- it used to be three-story buildings, and
when we turned to the old PUD, you're actually keeping, I believe, the same actual height. You just increased
November 16, 2017
Page 18 of 69
the zoned height from 5 feet. Is that a fair assumption?
MR. ARNOLD: I think that's fair. I need to look at the document myself to make sure that your
statement's accurate, but yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the other question is, I mentioned to you yesterday
concerns from some of the neighborhoods to the south about your four-story over parking height and
suggested that you look to put a line on the master plan as a line -- a point for the residential, because this will
be a residential issue where this would start as far as potentially being that new four-story over parking. Did
you guys, like, take a look at that? I know it's a PUD issue. I'm just asking for clarification now so when the
PUD comes in we don't have to fight about it.
MR. ARNOLD: I wasn't present at your meeting, Mr. Strain, but I think Mr. Yovanovich --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right, he wasn't.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know Wayne and I look a lot alike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He looks like David Gensen. What are you talking about?
MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right. You need to shave.
The answer to your question -- and I think the aerial that we had up -- it may not be more detailed
enough. The building -- there's a bank, I think, it's Valley National Bank, that's right on Pine Ridge Road. So
that building is, as well as the Starbucks building, is staying, and so is the office building that fronts Pine
Ridge Road.
So we could put a line on the master plan when we come back at the PUD to show that basically it
would start at the very southern end of the liner (sic) building. That would be the closest it would get to
where you would have the potential four stories over parking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or the southern line of the building you showed me on your master --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I mean site plan.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I would suggest when we do the PUD, let's get that locked in
before -- so that will at the point help --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. That's not a problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the process and understand it better. We don't have to research it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We can either do that or we also talked about a minimum distance from, I
think --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pine Ridge Road.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- Pine Ridge Road. So we can go one or the other way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. The market study. This is an interesting one. Is there -- do
you have your marketing study people here? Is Craig --
MR. ARNOLD: Unfortunately, Mike Timmerman was not able to be here today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're going to have fun then.
Do you know why on Page -- well, it's Page 139 of the electronic version, but it's Page 39 of his
market study, last paragraph. Now, I don't know how much Mike knows about Milano Lakes. It's the
affordable housing rental complex that David Torres is doing that. I think, Wayne, you may have been
involved in over off Lords Way.
MR. ARNOLD: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's behind the Assembly of God Church Ministries. He referenced that as
being in -- that they're actually going to come online with 296 units. Now, that's off of Collier Boulevard
over by the Swamp Buggy grounds. How does that -- why would he -- why is that as a reference? I thought
that was odd to pick something miles and miles out in the other side of I-75 in the urban fringe.
MR. ARNOLD: I believe the context of that -- and I've had the conversation with Mr.
Timmerman -- that was to show the lease-up rates. It wasn't necessarily that they're fighting for the same
rental tenant but to show how fast these are leasing up in the community, the new apartment complexes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: How fast what?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're leasing up. But you've picked an affordable housing project to
November 16, 2017
Page 19 of 69
show how competes to an extremely high-end project, and I'm just wondering -- that seemed kind of odd to
me.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's not an affordable housing project, that part --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's got affordable rentals in it. I doubt if it's going to get to $2,500 a
month.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't say that, but what I'm saying is it was also focused on essential
service personnel, which is the teachers and others that we were talking about. So it's -- and there's plenty of
market-rate units within that project, too.
I think what Mike was trying to do was to show you that we've looked at everything that's been
approved recently, and there's still market demand even though we just -- that one was approved, the
Vincentian PUD was also approved, and -- that's not coming out of the ground yet, but there are other
projects that are coming out of the ground like Addison Place. There's been projects approved recently, and
they're still more demand that needs to be met.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you want to continue answering for Mr. Timmerman, that's
great.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 174 electronically but Page 74 of the PDF and Page 36 of the
market study -- I have to give you so many numbers because we all are running off different versions here.
You have a chart on the top, and the chart on the top has Letters A through M for columns and then
years alongside it. And it says annual demand for market-rate units. And in 2017, the annual demand is
10,493. What does that represent? Demand for just that year? Because that's -- I think that demand is two
pages beyond that where it says cumulative demand. In the year 2017 it looks like its annual need is 753, and
cumulatively up to that point it's 1,893, and then he has the approved units, and he uses Milano to offset that
by 296, and he has another, apparently, affordable housing -- or not affordable, but apparently a rental unit of
300 to offset it for 2018.
Can you explain, first, what the first table means as far as the 2017 total demand is? Does that mean
all of the rental units on the market at that time? And then he's saying, as each year progresses, two pages
below that, on 20 -- we need so many more units per year, and 510 in 2015, 630 in 2016, 715 -- 53 in 2017?
Do you know, Wayne?
I mean, your market guy's not here. This is a big piece of this GMPA. You're asking for density in
excess what should be in that location, and I'm just trying to understand the justification for it.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, in reading what Mr. Timmerman set out as his criteria, that column, which is
H, it says annual demand, it says, the estimate of total market rate rental households based on the household
income range, and it's calculated by multiplying Column F by Column G. So I think it's a factor based on
income.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the income range he used to generate that is percent of income
between 30K and 99-. What does that mean; do you know?
MR. ARNOLD: I think that's based on percent of households that have an income range between
30,000 and $99,000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So did he say that the total rental households available in 2017 are 21,415,
or does he say that's the need, and of the need 49 percent of those are between that range and therefore, since
you're in, supposedly, that range in 2017, we need 10,493 in that range?
MR. ARNOLD: No. As he defines it, that column represents, Mr. Strain -- it says, the percentage of
households that have income between 30,000 and 99,000. I don't think it's meant to be a demand number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For the product that you're producing at whatever rental rate you're
asking for, what does he think the demand for that product is, and how is it needed on a yearly basis, and
what is the total on the market to date? Why don't we just ask that as a global, and then we can stop trying to
analyze tables without him here.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think if you go to Page 38 of his analysis, there's a table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up on top. That's the one I referred to, yes.
MR. ARNOLD: Right. And it talks about the net demand for units by year.
November 16, 2017
Page 20 of 69
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so 2017, we need 753 units; is that what you're agreeing to?
MR. ARNOLD: I think that's what he determined to be the annual need for units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: An additional, right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And somehow the current supply seems to be more than the annual
need, and then it says -- and he subtracts from the cumulative demand the approved units to end up with a net
demand of 1597. So is the 1597 needed on top of a current supply column that appears to be greater than the
need already?
MR. ARNOLD: I'll have to take a look at this and try to give you an answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Today?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes. But I don't know that I can respond to you instantaneously on that comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because there's another piece that I've got to bring up to you. The
county has done a GSI analysis on all the rental units in Collier County, and this just came out. It's an
11/01/17, so it's just recent. There's a total of 11,746 rental apartments in Collier County based on that
analysis. Also, there are nine projects already in process or some of them permitted and being built. Lely
being one; Milano Lakes being another; the Isles of Collier's coming in for 304 units; we've got a
project -- I've got a whole series of them. I think one you worked on, Briarwood, or Bob Mulhere did that
one.
You have a total of 2,912 units in process right now, and I don't see how that's reflected, because he
only has a table that shows there are two: New Hope Ministries and First Assembly Ministries Educational
Rehab. I'm just trying to understand where all these other -- on the bottom of that page where all those units
are and how he accounted for them in his analysis as shown in that. There needs to be a need above what's
already -- what you could have asked for on that property, which is 245 units. You're asking for 375. So I
think you need to justify that additional need. And I haven't seen that in this market study, or at least you're
not able to answer it, and I understand that. I thought Mr. Timmerman would be here today, and he's not. So
I'm not sure how to resolve that issue, but at least you understand my concern for now.
MR. ARNOLD: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now we get to talk about traffic.
MR. ARNOLD: Maybe Mr. Trebilcock should --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm glad he's here. I don't know if you'd want this as well.
Now, Norm, I'm going to kind of tell you where I'm coming from first so you understand.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a little more serious because of the circumstances than other traffic
issues we may have just not paid as much attention to.
We have two road systems going east and west in Collier County that we rely on right now. We
have others that are being created. One being Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. But our east road corridors,
Immokalee and Pine Ridge, are becoming critical to drive on.
Now, I know what your numbers say. Oh, they're fine, and they're not going to -- they're okay and
all this. And I know -- I hear this constantly, well, you know, if you've got to wait for three light changes,
that's not a big deal. You know, if you had to do that for one light, I'd say yes, but not every light all the way
along down the road.
And I had to drive these roads a lot. I drove them every day. And some I had to drive specifically in
the middle of the day, and I found the conditions just as bad.
And I know that your profession has brought stuff to us constantly saying we're going to do less
impacts than we could do, and that's why this is good. But it's kind of like climate change; it keeps saying,
well, we're not going to cause any problems with the climate to a factor we could have, so we're doing better.
But before we know it, it's irreversible, and we seem to be at that position on Pine Ridge and Immokalee
Road.
I'm real concerned about that. And I'm going to be asking questions to try to understand how you are
generating a reduction in traffic by adding 900 people to your project, and part of the conclusion or concern I
have is the original TIS that -- you did get a copy of that, did I hear you say earlier?
November 16, 2017
Page 21 of 69
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And tried to match that up to yours, and I couldn't. And that's an
interesting situation, because I'm going to need you to do that for me.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think that's where we can start. If you can -- I'm going to find my
version of it somewhere in this mess, and -- there it is.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, do you need this? Can I look at it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can have it, as far as I'm concerned. I gave that one to Sue. It's up to
Sue, if she wants to release it. I'll send her another one.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'll give it back. I just want to read it.
MS. FALKNER: It's okay, Rich. You can have it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, why don't we go to your tables on Page 98 of my document, Page 17
of yours. Well, actually, it's Page 198 of my document. I know Ned's probably fiercely trying to find it. The
pages as I read them are for your benefit, because I know you're trying to do it electronically.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the executive summary for the 1999 TIS, the project is expected to add
7,114 trips to the road system, 812 of which will occur at p.m. peak hour. I couldn't find those numbers in
your comparisons of the approved PUD versus the new PUD that you're proposing. Can you tell me where
they are or how they fit in?
MR. TREBILCOCK: You won't find those. It's not the same. They're two different documents.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, yours and this one, I understand that. But you had referred to the
proposed -- I mean, to the approved PUD. Did you not use the numbers from this TIS to do that?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Not the trip numbers, no, because what happens is we're required to use the
most recent ITE trip generation data, and that was based on what's called the sixth edition, and we are at the
ninth edition when we did this traffic study and, actually, we have the 10th edition knocking on our door right
now.
So we used the ninth edition. So there's three editions we've moved forward with. And so what
happens is the Institute of Transportation Engineers, they'll adopt newer editions, and they'll look at -- they'll
get a larger dataset of traffic, and so the trip generations can be different. And that's -- specifically. Because I
did take a look at, like, the shopping center and, specifically, the shopping center is different. You use -- the
same 100,000 square feet back then is a different trip generation today using the ITE numbers. And so we're
required to use the most current editions of ITE that the county's adopted, and we're currently at the ninth
edition. So those are the numbers we use.
What we used in terms of that old TIS, then, would be the square footages and distribution numbers,
things like that. But in terms -- for the trip generation, we would not. Also, even pass-by factors, they used a
higher pass-by factor than we used. And so, in other words, they're assuming more trips will actually be
taken off the roadway. The county has a cap now. It was 25 percent for a shopping center. That one used 33
percent. So there are differences, and even the overall assumptions that are made in terms of the land uses.
The other one is in the office complex.
And ITE has this where you have separate office buildings, what they'll do is suggest, if they're not
all interconnected, is to run each office building as a separate use. And so when you do that -- and that's how
the '99 study was done -- you'll come up with a higher trip generation.
Current standards with the staff is to use an aggregated amount. So we have 150,000 square feet of
office use, so we run that as a singular office use. The '99 study did it as 30,000, 40,000, and 80,000, and
that's consistent with ITE direction. So that was direct there.
But what your staff will do is adopt policies and procedures that are slightly different, and that's why
we go through a methodology with your staff, and that's what we did in this case.
So in terms of what you're asking to do to a certain extent is compare apples to oranges as far as that
goes.
November 16, 2017
Page 22 of 69
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I might say that about the way you approached it.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. No problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To be honest with you, when we're presenting with a project that says its
basis for its new request is that we're reducing the traffic count on the roads because we're going X from what
it was originally approved for for this, now I'm finding out, you're not really going by what it's originally
approved for. You're going by what it's originally requested with the new multiples that you want to use from
the new ITE manual, not what they used back in 1999.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, and I -- no -- and, yes, because we're required to, and you require that
as --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You're required to for your new proposal.
I'm -- Mr. Sawyer, would you mind coming up and helping me understand what your office would
require in regards to looking at the old TIS. And my first question, Mike, will be, did you receive the old
TIS?
MR. SAWYER: Good morning. Mike Sawyer, transportation -- transportation --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You think about it. Look it up.
MR. SAWYER: Transportation planner, sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do that a lot, Mike, so don't worry.
MR. SAWYER: There's just a page falling out of my grasp. It pushes me all over the place.
Yes, I did receive the 1999 TIS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First of all, checkbook concurrency. Are you familiar with that
phraseology?
MR. SAWYER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It did exist in this county once, and it was supposed to be the cure-all to all
the problems and how we're not going to allow roads to get too bad because we've got this great way of
keeping track of all the vested ability to be on the road.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How is this project entered into the checkbook concurrency system? The
existing project. I'm not talking about the new one.
MR. SAWYER: No, no, no. Briefly, what we're looking at with both the GMP as well as the PUD,
we are looking at a five-year window. Is there capacity on the existing roadway system to accommodate the
project that is being put forward for our review. That is, in essence, what we look at, if there is capacity on
the roadway system according to the applicable AUIR at the time of review. That's what we look at, and
that's how we deem it either consistent or not consistent within the GMP.
Not only that, but this is also in a TCMA area which allows a project to come forward. Even if there
is a problem on the adjacent road network, there are mitigations that are done if they do, in fact, impact those
adjacent roadways.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Mike, the question was, we have a checkbook concurrency system
supposedly, and I had understood when it was initiated, what, a decade ago that as a project was approved, its
trips that were vested for the road would be entered into this checkbook concurrency so we'd always know
when we had a problem.
My simple question was, what was entered for this project? And Trinity may have the answer. She's
standing behind you.
MR. SAWYER: I'm sure she'll be able to better answer it than I.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or she'll be able to spin it; I understand. Go ahead. It's easy.
Transportation's a hard one to understand, and I'll be the first to tell you I don't understand it as thoroughly as
I wish. I constantly am baffled by a lot of issues. We need clarity on this one, because this is a little more
intense in regards to what's being asked and on a road system that's probably one of the worst in the county,
and I want to be careful.
MS. SCOTT: Trinity Scott, transportation manager, for the record and, obviously, spin master by
your Chair.
Checkbook concurrency, how it occurs is we have our background traffic, and we have a trip bank.
November 16, 2017
Page 23 of 69
So as someone comes in for a Site Development Plan or their PPL, they pay a portion of their impact fees,
which has changed through the years in whether they paid it all, whether they paid half, whether they paid a
third, and they received a certificate of adequate public facility.
When they do that, their trips are then banked in what we call our trip bank. So it's kind of your
checkbook. The background traffic, you have your volume of the roadway or, I'm sorry, the capacity of the
roadway is kind of your balance, and then you subtract out the background traffic, and you subtract out the
bank trips, which are, as I said, as they come in for PPL.
Once they get on the ground and they are CO'ed, we pull them out of the trip bank because they've
become part of your background traffic. Does that make sense?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. How, then, is this project's current status, not the new
proposed, current status looked at in regards to trip bank capacity versus -- which is kind of like checkbook.
That's the explanation for checkbook concurrency.
MS. SCOTT: Right. So this is for one --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how they reside in that system now?
MS. SCOTT: This one right now would be part of background traffic because it has existing
unit -- existing buildings that are out there.
Now, the additional square footage that was not built but was approved by the PUD would be subject
to further concurrency standards if it came in. So if this action did not occur at all and they came in and they
wanted to build what was remaining that's allowable with the PUD, they would be subject to concurrency
standards which, as Mike alluded to, it's also in the Transportation Concurrency Management Area, which
would allow them to be exempt from concurrency management if they followed certain provisions outlined in
our Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that part I, unfortunately, understand. I mean, to say that the two worst
roads in the county are part of a TCMA that's supposed to make everything okay to keep cluttering them up,
I'm not sure that's a really good idea from a policy standpoint, but I know it's on the books, and that's the way
it is.
But I'm trying to understand, then, how would this -- see, the premise for adding the higher density
than what's allowed by the GMP -- and the whole reason they're in for a GMP change is that they're not really
going to have more -- greater impact on the road from the originally approved project. The originally
approved project's TIS has a different way of calculating it.
Which do you guys use? Do you use what the original project was approved at to understand the
impacts, or are you constantly recalculating all the projects every time you have a COA request or anything
like that?
MS. SCOTT: We are not recalculating when they come in for CO -- well, I shouldn't say that. So
when they come in today and they do their TIS guidelines, when they come in for their SDP or their PPL,
let's just say it's four years down the road, they're going to use the most current version of the ITE manual at
that time. So if we're in Volume 14 at that time, this PUD document, we're not going to make them go back
and use the 10th edition. They're using the latest edition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that brings another question for this panel, especially. We
routinely now put trip caps. In fact, there's a project coming up next that has a trip cap of something -- a
one-liner -- transportation had a one-line item in that whole PUD, which is very rare for you guys, but in that
one line it's simply saying the trip cap is X.
Are you saying that trip cap then fluctuates with the ITE standards throughout time?
MS. SCOTT: It does not. But what I will tell you is you have people with -- from standing behind
me who hate that trip cap because let's just say today a single-family home uses seven trips, or let's just say
it's two trips in the p.m. peak. If later on that ITE trip generation manual changes to say that it's three trips in
the p.m. peak, then they can't build as many units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did you read the TIS that was originally provided on this
project for today's meeting?
MS. SCOTT: I did not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I have another question of Mike. Thank you, Trinity.
November 16, 2017
Page 24 of 69
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. While the traffic people are up here -- and I know you have
the floor, and I apologize for the interruption.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Rather than bring them back up --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not done with them yet.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I know; I know.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: We're done with them.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But this follows closely what we're talking about, and that is Land
Development Code 4.07.02, which sets design requirements as applicable to PUDs.
And it says in Section D.3 that the Board of County Commissioners may lessen density or intensity
of development when it has been determined that development to the maximum density or intensity
permissible would create traffic congestion in the streets which adjoin or lead to the PUD.
So unless I'm misinterpreting this, I take it that when this comes to the BCC, they are going to be
able to look beyond AUIR considerations of deficiency and make a practical decision that the congestion is
going to be worse and, therefore, we're going to reduce what would otherwise have been permissible. Am I
reading this correctly? If -- so the BCC, then shouldn't we also, as the Planning Commission, be looking at it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's the focus of all the questions. I don't know if Ray or
anybody else wants to weigh in, but I think that's why -- that's why I am asking these questions. I'm trying to
establish their justification for 130 units more than what they should be allowed by the GMP, and then the
GMP is another level altogether.
I'm probably more comfortable that they can equate to a lower level of residential, but I'm not
satisfied yet that they can equate to a higher level of residential, and that's why I'm asking the questions.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And so the comments that were made by someone on behalf of
the developer of the NIM to the effect that the people really don't have a say in this anymore, I think that's
contradicted by the ordinance that I just cited.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the final conclusion is everybody has a say until the elected
officials get done with it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, then Tom.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It will go quick.
Does anyone ever ground-truth the assumptions that are made after the project is built?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Annual traffic counts; isn't that the way you do that?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, you do traffic counts on roads, but does anybody sit at
your entrance and --
MS. SCOTT: No, we don't.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Groundtruthing.
MS. SCOTT: It's purely based on what's happening out on the main network, and we are doing
traffic counts throughout the year.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom?
MR. EASTMAN: This question's for Mike or for Trinity. Are you confident that the changes
proposed will not increase traffic trips?
MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer.
Again, I did look at the trip counts that we were provided for, both the current ninth edition, which
was the TIS that was provided to us, as well as the 1999 version. Again, that's the sixth edition.
Looking at the information that was provided to us, it does appear that the project will have fewer
trips on the network. There isn't a large change to it, I believe it's about 38 trips p.m. peak, but that is what it
appears to be showing.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: In relation to what is actual and current or what is permitted?
November 16, 2017
Page 25 of 69
MR. SAWYER: What is permitted.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I think that's an important distinction, because it looks to me as
though it's going to -- and I think this may have been Tom's question -- that this project will increase traffic
on Pine Ridge in relation to current actual traffic.
MR. SAWYER: If you're talking about what is already in the ground currently, if you're talking
about the trips --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I'm talking about, what we experience day in and day out
driving on Pine Ridge.
MR. SAWYER: Yes, because they still have development rights to the existing square footage that's
allowed by --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not talking law. I'm talking traffic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think what Mike's trying to say is they're not built out for the total
commercial and office they could put there. So if they did build out, it would be different than what it is
today, and he's trying to separate that issue out for you.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do understand that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: The reason it's not built out is because it financially didn't make sense
to build it out, I would assume.
MR. SAWYER: I can't answer that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I know you can't. But that's an assumption I'm making.
MR. SAWYER: Understood.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So just so that I'm clear, this project, although it may be a reduction of
what is permitted if they were to build out commercially and if the commercial demand supported the
enterprise, but when compared to actual current traffic on Pine Ridge, it's going to result in more trips? And I
think that was Tom's question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. I think that's the answer we're still trying to get. The idea of
more trips is a comparison to the buildout of the previous project to the buildout of the new and proposed
project, and I don't think we've -- at least I haven't gotten my answer satisfied to that effect yet.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, neither -- well, then I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, did you have --
MR. EASTMAN: I was mostly concerned with what they have to do -- the rights that they have to
build now and the trips that it would generate versus the rights that they're asking for with this change and the
trips that it would generate, and I think Mike answered my question very clearly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have a followup to your question on Mike's basis.
Mike, you had said you reviewed this and you believe, based on what you reviewed at the time, that
this is basically consistent with the trip counts. Did you have the old TIS that you were sent yesterday at that
time?
MR. SAWYER: Yes. Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why'd you ask me for it?
MR. SAWYER: I'm sorry. I apologize. I thought you meant today. I did not have it before you
gave it to me yesterday.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your analysis that you responded to Tom Eastman, that was
based on your conclusions that are in the staff report?
MR. SAWYER: Partly, but since that time I have also looked at the '99 study as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, what is the trip cap on the '99 study?
MR. SAWYER: I don't believe that there was a trip cap on the '99 study; however, the trip study
does say that there were going to be 812 p.m. peak net trips.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you were to use that and insert this into this process in front of us
today for the proposed units, where would that fall in Norm's tables; do you know?
MR. SAWYER: I believe that -- hang on. The existing allowable PUD would have 736 p.m. peak
trips. The proposed would have 698 p.m. peak trips.
November 16, 2017
Page 26 of 69
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well --
MR. SAWYER: Again, that's net.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at -- you're probably looking at Table 2C on the traffic report,
which is Page 7. It's Page 98 of the PDF, and it's Page 198 of the electronic version.
The reason I'm bringing that up, it says, proposed PUDA non-pass-by 7,100 for 24 hour, two-way
volume. It goes into p.m. peak hour enter and exit for a net 661 total. You see where I'm talking about?
Okay. What, Norm?
MR. TREBILCOCK: I can square it away for you, hopefully.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, you can't.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, let me try just one simple statement. Using the 1999 study, just
we're -- you remember the PUD trip cap. As Mike said, there wasn't a trip cap established at the PUD in
1999, okay, but if I use the 1999 study, okay, and use the same language that we're currently using, the 1999
study would establish the gross p.m. two-way peak-hour trips at 1,134 trips. Our trip cap proposed in the
PUD proposed is 942 p.m. peak hour trips.
And the difference is, as I explained earlier in terms of using the current standards and
methodologies -- but if we had a cap back then, what we're proposing is lesser. And then when we move
to -- so from my perspective, if we use what you're suggesting, that would be preferable because it allows a
greater amount of impacts, okay.
We're agreeable with staff to not do that. And just so we understand, too, kind of answering the
followup about the NIM, our initial analysis, again, for what you all look at -- because you look at it from a
zoning perspective, okay, of what zoning allows versus what it doesn't allow. So we did our analysis and
clearly showed that this proposal is a lesser impact so the study stops. Okay.
From the NIM, though, it came up that folks were concerned about what are the actual trips, just as
the question that came up today. So we've updated the TIS, and we show you the link traffic we typically use
for a Site Development Plan for actually operational analysis, and we did the trip bank that Trinity had
mentioned.
In addition, what we do when we look at the background, to grow the background, we also put in a
growth factor on that road. So -- and we'll use the higher of the two. We'll use the higher of a growth factor
or the trip bank. So, conservatively, we're trying to look at the same kind of issues that you all are.
And then when we look at the percentage of level-of-service impact as was read, we are below the 2
percent where you need to look at another link; yet then we looked at another link, and the other link was still
fine as well as in the analysis.
So we've gone above and beyond what the normal standard is for the analysis for what is required for
you all review. That study was provided to you in addition to match up to the growth conversions. We're
providing an updated TIS, per Mike's review, and we're also updating that TIS to the 2017 AUIR to keep
things as fresh as possible for you.
But, again, those numbers show, for the purpose of what you all are looking at, this proposal is a
lesser impact than what is currently allowed per zoning from a traffic standpoint. If you would like me to use
the 1999 trip numbers and do a differential, I'll gladly do that. It just gives more room. Again, what your
staff has done is going to more current things that brings it down so it brings down the amount of impacts we
can potentially have. So just to help you there, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me start over.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I started out with a question, and you thought you had an answer for it.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I thought I did. Okay. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not even close. So I appreciate all that commentary, but that's not what I'm
trying to understand. And, Norm --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- maybe I'm different than all the people in this room or elsewhere. I can't
understand how you guys calculate things. I wish I could. It is probably one of the biggest mysteries I've
experienced in my 20 years sitting, practically, on this board.
November 16, 2017
Page 27 of 69
MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't seen one of you come in with any explanation that I can
understand, and maybe it's just -- I'm just not schooled enough to do that. So you're going to have to help me.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. I'll help however I can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if we've got -- in the TIS that was provided in '99, it says, the project
is expected to add 7,114 trips to the adjacent roadway network on a daily basis. If you go to Table 2C, a
24-hour two-way volume for the proposed PUD, which is yours, is 7,100. The approved PUD says 7,952.
Does that 7,952 really correlate to the 7,114?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, because, again, it's using the current standards for that. That's all. That's
how we're doing the comparison.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is using the current standard, 7,114 or the 7,952? Where did the
7,952 come from?
MR. TREBILCOCK: That would be the sixth edition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the sixth edition took the previous '99 trip calculation and increased it to
7,952; is that what you're saying?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No. What -- okay. Again, what -- let's see. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the executive summary for the '99 TIS, it said, the project is expected to
add 7,114 trips to the adjacent roadway network on a daily basis.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I'm trying to find is, where is that number incorporated into your
analysis? Even if you had to change it because of the current ITE.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, I'm sorry. I understand completely now. That would be -- our total net
approved PUD allowed is 7,952. That's Page 7 of the Traffic Impact Statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that would compare to the 7,114 that I've been asking about.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. And, again, that's a daily basis. And under that study, you had,
again, different assumptions in terms of reduction factors and such. But from the peak-hour standpoint -- and
that's the matrix that the county uses for concurrency, because that's -- that p.m. peak hour, that's where we
have the lesser amount.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, I don't understand how you create your numbers, but I do
know enough math to create numbers. And so what I did is, instead of 7,952, if you use 7,144, and you
create the same ratio to that number that you did for your 7,100 in both entering and exiting, you end up with
having an approved PUD with less total than the total of the proposed PUD. That's the crux of where I'm
trying to come from.
I understand that you got to the new PUD -- the old PUD being greater than your new one, but you
did it because you used the new multiplier on the old TIS and that -- if you'd use the old TIS numbers, which
is what I was concerned, the checkbook concurrency and vesting was set upon, that's the comparison I was
trying to find out. And based on the ratios that I came up with, you're not -- it's not the same as yours.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. But that's actually the executive summary number. If you really look
at their -- let me see. The net new trips at buildout, they're showing 812 in the peak hour there, which
is -- again, we're showing a lesser amount.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight hundred twelve, yeah.
MR. TREBILCOCK: And that's the key matrix.
So there are different values, you're right. You have a daily volume, but the p.m. peak hour is the one
that you use for concurrency, because that's where you feel the capacity impact the most, because if the traffic
gets distributed throughout the day, it's not necessarily an issue. But the peak hour and the peak direction,
which is the p.m. peak is the key, and that's the key matrix we use, and that's why this is a lesser amount.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm going to try to move on past the numbers, because I could
talk to you for hours trying to figure this thing out. I'm done with that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I understand. Yep, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When do you see this project coming online? Is it something that -- I mean,
they're in for PUD. Is it going to be built rather rapidly? Because the improvements on Pine Ridge from
November 16, 2017
Page 28 of 69
Airport to Livingston and Livingston to I-75 are going to occur in 2025. 2018 for Livingston to I -- I'm sorry.
From Shirley to Airport and Airport to Livingston, they're supposed to be road improvements in 2025 there.
Will this project be completed after that date? I'm sorry. The deficiency will be that. Yeah, now I'm reading
it.
The improvements were only for the piece from Livingston -- wow, Livingston. There's
no -- Trinity, can you -- when are we going to be improving Pine Ridge Road to the concerns that are shown
on the AUIR that was just passed by the Board yesterday that shows deficiencies in 2018 and 2025? I mean,
this project's coming right in the middle of that.
MS. SCOTT: We have on the Pine Ridge section -- I'm trying to get to my right attachment here in
my AUIR.
The Pine Ridge section from Livingston to Airport, we have a study that's ongoing right now, and
that's to do operational improvements, and we have construction shown in 2021 and 2022. And that will do
operational improvements to -- based on our analysis right now, take us through 2040 on that with multiple
intersection improvements including some minor improvements to the interchange area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is that supposed to rise -- to raise its effective level of service from
whatever standard it is?
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That means the road will flow better in diversion time and all that
good stuff you guys are --
MS. SCOTT: Yes, diversion time and, yes, the continuous flow intersection, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if this project didn't build those additional densities until that
time, we'd be in a lot better shape?
MS. SCOTT: As I said, they're in a TCMA. They're able to be exempt from checkbook concurrency.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So do the TCMA exempt them from checkbook concurrency for anything
they ask for or just what they could have obtained versus what they want? I mean, they're asking for 130
units more than what's allowed by the GMP, so have you guys already calculated that in your TCMA that all
these developers could come in and change everything and say we just want more, and it's still okay with the
TCMA?
MS. SCOTT: The TCMA has to operate all of the lane miles at 85 percent of the acceptable
capacity, the acceptable level of service, and currently right now that TCMA has one section that is currently
failing. It does have other sections that are projected to fail, but we have other improvements that we're also
looking at adding within that area, such as Veterans Memorial, to relieve Immokalee Road. You also have
Vanderbilt Beach Road that we plan on widening, as well as Airport Road all within the AUIR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think I might have missed my question. The TCMA, when it was
created, was it created based on the road systems and the capacities that our GMP allowed at the time as
thinking what the buildout and capacities would be that the TCMA would have to manage?
MS. SCOTT: I honestly couldn't answer that question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who could?
MS. SCOTT: Probably my husband.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is he here?
MS. SCOTT: He's not. But he was here when they were developed. So I honestly wasn't here when
they were developed, nor was I involved in transportation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the TCMA was created to handle what was expected for the roads, and
all of a sudden it's arbitrarily changed by any number of projects along the way higher than what was
expected by the GMP, which is the overriding document for density, you've got to wonder how you would
have thought that TCMA could have existed or could have gone forward.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Maybe Nick could come up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I've got on transportation. I'll -- what I've got there.
MS. SCOTT: If I could just -- there is one provision within the GMP, it's Policy 5.6, the
Transportation Element, that talks about what a TCMA is. It's to encourage compact urban development
where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provide multiple viable alternative travel
November 16, 2017
Page 29 of 69
paths or modes for common trips.
This particular subject property has access to transit; multiple transit routes go. They actually
transfer at this existing site, and I believe we're working on keeping that incorporated in there. And it has
relatively good transit service, comparatively around the county. Other areas have 90-minute headways and
things like that. But they do have multiple buses coming in this area. And it also does have multiple arterial
roadways within the area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Trinity.
MS. SCOTT: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Trinity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess the next question is of maybe Wayne.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The existing amount of commercial on the ground is -- I'm finding -- I've
checked to see what our internal banking system had, and it shows you only have 47,911 square feet left to
build, but I keep hearing a number around 2004. This one's calling out an existing building in the northeast
corner: The Pine Ridge Common SDP, the Magnolia Square SDP, and the Partners Bank SDP as four
separate structures or SDPs that were built, and that leaves a total 47,911 square feet. Do you know how they
would have gotten to that? Are you positive on your 200 and whatever number you've got? I mean, you're
the owners of it. You should know what you've got there. I just don't know why the county's got a different
number.
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know where the county obtained their numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if we go to the -- I mean, maybe you know this guy. Do you
know a guy named Charles Rogers with Cortelious?
MR. ARNOLD: I do not know him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. He wrote on behalf of the Pine Ridge Common PUD. He says
there's 205,878 thousand (sic) square feet as of November 2014, and you're at 204-, so you're pretty close. In
2016 he sent another letter saying there's 120,983. I'm just trying to understand how someone's going to have
to ground-truth amount of square footage that you've already got to know what you've got out there, so...
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think Mr. Trebilcock's numbers reflect pretty accurately the figures that
represent what's been built to date.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I forgot, Terri needs a break. We'll take a break. We'll come back at
11 clock. We may end up breaking for lunch sooner than we normally do, Terri. So come back in 10
minutes, or 11:01.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will please take their seats, we'll assume.
Wayne, something else that's probably going to need to be cleared up at some point or another, your
last monitoring report that was submitted, and it was in 2012, I don't know why the county accepted this if the
internal document showed you didn't have this much -- you had more than this built. But the monitoring
report said you have 121,288 square feet built. So, again, some of that stuff's got to be correlated, and I guess
it can happen down the road, but -- and I will not let the question die. So at some point when you come back
in, I'll still have that question. We need to get it resolved.
I'm hoping that the folks over doing our central -- our CTS -- I don't know what that -- keep track of
it, who are listening to some of this, maybe they can have answers when I get back.
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, I think part of the issue may be the way that PUD monitoring has been
completed in the past. Each owner of the PUD would submit a PUD monitoring report. Now the county
requires us to have one PUD monitoring report, one entity. So I think going forward we are going to have
much better and accurate figures for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may want to get that before you finalize your PUD, because you're a
ways away yet. You may want to get all that resubmitted and corrected so the record's right, and then it all
matches up. It might be a good way to do it.
Let me see what else I've got. There's one other thing I wanted to mention to you. Oh, there's a
DCA out there. Did you know that, a Developer Contribution Agreement? Basically, it says you've got
November 16, 2017
Page 30 of 69
$438,000 in impact fees. Have those been used up yet?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you intending to pay impact fees on your new residential units to
whatever they are, and that will be offset by whatever's remaining on the 438-? You didn't look at the DCA
as 100 percent wiping out of your impact fee commitment, did you?
MR. ARNOLD: No, I don't believe we did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only to the extent it's on the DCA. Okay. That's all the questions I've got
on your end of things, so.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for ending?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate that, too. You know, the whole thing, though, I still don't
understand the transportation, and I wish I did.
MR. ARNOLD: Do you want me to try to explain it for you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, just like you did the market. That would be really good.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: This might have to come back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, Norm's a great guy, but I probably need to spend a week with him
trying to understand from the very basics how they come up -- how the engineers do their thing, because -- I
don't know. I just have never been able to follow it correctly, so...
Thank you, sir.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sue, is there a staff report?
MS. FALKNER: Yes. Good morning. I'm Sue Falkner, Comprehensive Planning. And the first
thing I'd like to do is clarify my statement to you, Mr. Chairman, from yesterday.
I misspoke. The table on Page 38 of the market study indicates some potential costs for the
market-rate housing, and the top dollar is for a three-bedroom, and it's 2,313.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. FALKNER: So I apologize for misspeaking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's no problem. I just -- I didn't know if I heard you right, and you
just corrected it. So thank you.
MS. FALKNER: No, I misspoke, sorry.
Anyway, I didn't actually have that information with me at the time. I was talking from memory.
Anyway, the first thing I would like to do is just make a few statements that have to do with our staff
report. And the first is Goodlette/Pine Ridge mixed-use subdistrict is in an urban project. It's located in close
proximity to goods and services. It shares characteristics of the mixed-use activity center subdistricts we
have, including mixed use, high density, location at major intersections, and proximity to residential
development. The Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use development.
There are no adverse environmental effects, impacts as a result of this petition. There's no historic or
archaeological sites that have been affected by this amendment.
Transportation-related concerns were brought forward at the NIM and, as a result of that, I went on
to state that Transportation Planning had indicated that this project would not cause an increase in the traffic.
They did state that it would be a net decrease, so that was a statement made.
There are no infrastructure concerns as a result of this, such as utilities that are created by this
petition. And the proposed uses are generally compatible with the surrounding areas.
And we are recommending approval of this project for transmittal to the DEO.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, if I may.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: It gets back to this ordinance that I read sections of, 4.07.02, which
seems to me to call upon the county commissioners when it comes to them to decide, that they are
encumbered by measuring by the actual change against the projected change under the current zoning but,
November 16, 2017
Page 31 of 69
rather, they can look at the change in traffic that would result in relation to the actual current traffic, which I
think we all concede is a net increase.
And so under that statute, or that ordinance, since the county commissioners can look at it, and we
being the Planning Commission and the local planning agency under the state statute, I think, have the ability
to make recommendations that go beyond the limitation that perhaps staff has imposed upon itself when you
compare what the developer wants to do to what the developer could have done under the current PUD.
And that's -- the whole difference between the current situation and what was projected years and
years ago to be the current situation is the essence of my concern over this.
MS. FALKNER: Okay. And you have a question?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I suppose if I had a question it would be, shouldn't you also be
looking as carefully at current conditions as you do over projected, what was projected years ago to be a
current condition?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning and Planning director.
Sue works within the Growth Management Plan team. The question is really relating to a Land
Development Code question, so let me try to field that.
But when it speaks about zoning, it doesn't -- I don't think it's directed towards the actual trips that
the project is yielding based upon its current state of development. I believe that when it speaks of zoning, it
references the maximum allowed intensity provided by that zoning. So that's the evaluation, I believe, that
it's --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mike, that's the whole question right there. It doesn't say "allowed." It
says "maximum intensity," so maybe it's ambiguous. But I take away from that it means the current density
rather than what could have been.
MR. BOSI: The term "zoning," the term "zoning" is the key statement within that policy. It doesn't
say project -- "project development" or "developed." It says "zoning." Zoning means what your zone
allowed for. A project that's developed may be underneath what that zoning's allowed for.
So I think the distinction, the term that you should be putting your focus upon is "zoning," and the
zoning is -- many times within our PUDs, within our SDPs, they allow -- what's developed within an SDP
does not reach the upper end of what's provided by the zoning.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mike, I didn't read all the context around this ordinance I cited. You
could very well be correct. But I take it that you -- neither you nor the County Attorney is telling us that we
cannot take account of current conditions on Pine Ridge. You're not saying that, are you?
MR. BOSI: Oh, you most certainly can take that with into (sic) your considerations and the
evaluation of the project.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mike, has anyone ever looked at any infrastructure in Collier
County and said, this infrastructure is severely stressed; we should probably do a moratorium?
MR. BOSI: There has been a number of times where moratoriums have been imposed based upon
concerns of impacts on the infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So what does it take to do that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get the mike a little closer.
MR. BOSI: That would be a condition to report an evaluation from a staff perspective or by the
Planning Commission, and then the Board of County Commissioners would have to adopt a moratorium
within a specific period of time, and then within that specific period of time, develop, whether it be projects
or policies that would address how development can move forward within that period of time allocated.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else of the staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few, Sue or Mike, whoever wants to answer it.
The GMP amendment seems to be saying that they're going to be asking for multifamily rental
housing. I'm reading it from the staff report. Is that what your understanding is, whoever's reviewed this?
November 16, 2017
Page 32 of 69
MS. FALKNER: Absolutely. Multifamily rental.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you see a difference between a multifamily rental as a product
use and a townhome?
MS. FALKNER: A difference in which way? In the impacts?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The PUD is saying they have two principal uses they're asking to be
allowed. One is multifamily -- one is the multifamily; the other is townhome. And townhomes can be done
fee simple and sold, and I'm not sure they're really considered rentals. And I'm just wondering how we're
relegating that or regulating that in regards to reviews of PUDs to follow this up after it's finished.
MS. FALKNER: My understanding is that zoning does make a distinction in multifamily housing
and so they could do either. But in the GMP they are being asked to put rental.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how would we -- if they created townhomes --
MS. FALKNER: How would we enforce it, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If they created townhomes and they did them fee simple, split them
on their property line, their boundary or their wall lines, how would you regulate that, or how is that going to
be looked at?
MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. David Weeks in the Comprehensive Planning
section.
First of all, let me say that the data and analysis submitted by the applicant demonstrated a need for
rental housing, and so staff, I'll say, pushed the applicant to specify in their Comprehensive Plan amendment
that it would be rental housing because we were not seeing any demonstrated need for, generically,
multifamily, which could mean condominium or fee-simple ownership. And, ultimately, the applicant did
acquiesce, did commit to rental housing in the Comprehensive Plan amendment; therefore, to be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, the PUD will also have to limit the housing to rental.
Now, the type of structure could vary. That's not limited, but it has to be rental to be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan amendment if this gets approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they could then put in -- they could even put detached housing, they
could do anything they want, and it wouldn't be multifamily. So anything that's considered three units or
more, because it's got -- a duplex I don't think is multi, but even if it was, it's got to be more than one unit
connected to it, let's say. You don't care about how it's sold. It could be sold fee simple, it could be maybe
made a condominium and then rented out. How do we regulate that? I mean, you're asking us to consider
something that you believe is needed.
MR. WEEKS: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then how is it regulated? How do we know it's going to perform?
MR. WEEKS: The language in the Comprehensive Plan amendment does say "rental apartments,"
so that's at least going to confine it, I believe, to three or more units in one structure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a townhome would be considered an apartment?
MR. WEEKS: I believe -- as long as it meets the definition in the LDC then, yes, it would.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's interesting, because they're asking for townhomes, too, and I
thought that was odd compared to what this all seems to be lending itself towards.
Okay. David, the market study, I know that this analysis for apartment housing just came out of the
GIS department in November 1st, so you probably didn't have it to review the market study. But we couldn't
get answers today because their market guy isn't here. Did you guys -- how did you -- I mean, because a lot
of these in process -- the nine in-process projects, almost 3,000 units, some of them have been in process for a
year or two years. So how did you -- did you guys know all this when you looked at the market study?
Because the numbers in the market study showing what needs to be produced every year not only seem to be
met, but they're being exceeded by the values of those in process, and I'm just wondering how we thought
about that.
MR. WEEKS: First, you're correct, that analysis that came out November 1st, we did not have.
What we do with market studies, be it housing in this case or be it commercial, we look at the information
that the applicant provides for accuracy and for reasonableness. Accuracy would be looking at the inventory,
in this case, of what was already there, the apartments already on the books, already built.
November 16, 2017
Page 33 of 69
And then for projections, we look for reasonableness of what their projections show, the demand that
they're showing, we look at the population projections that they provide, compare them with those that the
county prepares, in this case at the planning community level. There's properties in North Naples planning
community. We also look at the amount of vacant land, you know, what are the other opportunities for
apartment complexes to be built. In this case, say, in the North Naples planning community, and there's
minimal opportunity because North Naples is a planing community that is closer to buildout than, certainly,
those further to the east.
We look at the population projections specific to this planning community as well as the Greater
Naples urbanized area.
And then we consider the demand in a generic sense. We have had, in discussions -- I say "we," the
county -- in discussions at the Affordable Housing Commission that meets, I think, monthly, also right up to
the Affordable Housing Plan that the board adopted just last month identified -- again, generically, not
specific numbers attached, that I'm aware of -- but generically identifying a need for more rental apartments;
that the occupancy has been, for some time, at or near 100 percent.
So, again, without very specific information, but broadly speaking, recognizing that there is a need
and there has been for some time, I think at least since the economic downturn and our recovery since, that
there's a need for more rental apartments at all income levels, not -- certainly at affordable levels, but even at
the market rate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In previous GMP amendments, when you've required a market study -- I
think you do for all of them anyway -- they would look at a sphere, a radius, two, three, five miles, whatever.
How is the Milano project -- and I'm -- do you know -- are you familiar with the location of that, way
out -- it's --
MR. WEEKS: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a half mile or quarter mile east of 951.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How -- and south of I-75. How does that fit into the sphere of influence for
this market study?
MR. WEEKS: It really doesn't, because the traditional -- first of all, the Comprehensive Plan
amendments that we receive usually are requesting commercial development --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. WEEKS: -- and usually it's a broad range of commercial allowing retail, office, personal
services, et cetera. And so the market study would be looking at either neighborhood community or regional
commercial, all of which do have -- and professional literature and ULI standards do specify those market
study areas either based on concentric circles, distances from the subject site, or perhaps a drive time/distance
from the subject site.
That's not the case for residential. I am not aware of any particular type of sphere of influence that is
applicable. We believe that it was reasonable what the applicant did, and that was to look at the entire coastal
urban area or at least as far south as U.S. 41 and Collier Boulevard intersection all the way up to the Lee
County line and then all the way east to Collier Boulevard and slightly beyond to be within the urban area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is transmittal. And I know there can be a lot of changes during the
adoption process, and by that process we should see the PUD, so we'll have more detail.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're asking for more units than the GMP requires, or would allow.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say that we go through transmittal and we give them the benefit of the
doubt on the 375 for another day, because there's a lot of things that, right now, I'll tell you, I am not -- I don't
have answers for, and I'm concerned with it, but I know transmittal is only, for example, three votes of the
Board, and adoption is the key.
I also was surprised at some of the positions the applicant took today versus what I thought they had
taken yesterday, because they didn't verbalize them, but I just figured I didn't hear an objection, so I thought I
understood it better.
November 16, 2017
Page 34 of 69
If they were to go through transmittal at 375 today for the sake of argument, is there anything that
entitles them based on that?
I mean, the GMP I always saw as a document that allowed someone to ask for something, but it
would be the implementation through the zoning process that tells us if they've really met the criteria to get
what they're asking for. Is that still something that you perceive to be the process?
MR. WEEKS: I do and, furthermore, the distinction between this being transmittal versus the
adoption hearings.
So if this were to be transmitted as submitted, you still have during your adoption review, both this
body and the Board of County Commissioners, the ability to further limit what is being requested. You are
not bound just because you approved it for transmittal, or recommended in this case, not bound by that.
If for -- I think it would have to be a reasonable -- you know, you would have to have some valid
purpose -- excuse me -- valid basis for recommending something different at adoption that's lesser but,
absolutely, you have that. And then likewise, I think -- I took it as a two-part question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine.
MR. WEEKS: If this plan amendment ultimately gets adopted and there are -- it's adopted at 375
units, that is not a guarantee that the zoning must be approved at 375 units as well. During that zoning
review, the county has the ability, again, to say, is the infrastructure impact acceptable at 375 units? Is the
project compatible as it is proposed in the zoning document with the surrounding area? And those typically
are your two points of interest that could be a basis for a recommendation that's not in favor of a project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the compatibility standards, there are a lot more activities to be
concerned about. For example, traffic has a compatibility issue. It's one of the findings of the PUD zoning
and all that, so...
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I like your answer. I appreciate it.
One other piece, though; the DEO, it's not like the DCA, and they basically like everything. Like
traffic engineers like all kinds of traffic; they never say no. And does that have any bearing on what we
would have to be able to do with it?
MR. WEEKS: Well, the only bearing I'd say is that we don't have big brother looking over our
shoulder like we used to back when -- prior to the 2011 legislative changes that, in my words, defanged the
state agency. They are primarily limited to looking at important state resources. It's a vague term.
And my experience is that for projects such as this, with the exception, potentially, of state roads,
such as U.S. 41 nearby and I-75, that there are no state resources that they would be looking at. And so I
believe that, generally speaking, that state agency looks at projects such as this as a local issue or at least an
issue to which they do not have an ability to raise an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, there's been some questions raised and unanswered concerning the
market study. Could this board rely on the fact that if this got through the transmittal that your department
would relook at that market study in light of the new information we have that was more recently developed
and possibly see how that works with it?
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your conclusions, I assume, are based on what was submitted, and if what
was submitted was missing a lot of information that we now have, I would ask that you reconsider your
position on the market study or update it or have them update it or do something that tells us how they've
taken this new information into consideration.
MR. WEEKS: Sure. We'd be glad to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I've got. Thank you, David.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do have one question of transportation staff. It will be short, I promise. I
hope. It could be your answer could make it long.
MR. SAWYER: For the record, again Mike Sawyer, and it can be as long as you need.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think everybody's probably getting tired of me talking too much
today.
November 16, 2017
Page 35 of 69
Mike, the PUD has a conversion factor in it for this project, but I noticed in the TIS that there's
different ratios for traffic for retail and office. So I noticed in the PUD there's only one conversion ratio. I
would suggest that as the PUD goes through, so we're coordinated with any kind of adoption process, that the
conversion rates match up to what we need in regards to whether it's retail or office conversion.
I didn't look at it close enough because it wasn't really the issue for today, but I did catch that in
reading it. I don't particularly like conversions, but we'll have to need evidence that that's a practical ratio for
whatever one it is, and office may have a different ratio than retail. I would think it would. But that's
something I just wanted to point out for you to look at. And the applicant is here today, so he'll know we're
going to be looking at it more closely.
MR. SAWYER: Staff would definitely concur with that, and there are a number of projects, just to
let you know, that are looking at these types of conversion charts. And so staff is looking at those and finding
methods where we coordinate some method, every time an SDP comes in, that we have a set document that
also accompanies that submittal. So we have a chart that comes in with the submittal that shows what the
actual is, what's allowed, what's already been permitted, and what's being proposed. So we would share that
concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mike.
MR. SAWYER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions before we go to public speakers?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, do you want to call the first registered speaker. And if you
come up to speak and you have not been sworn in, would you please let us know so we can get you sworn in.
Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: Lynn Miller.
MS. MILLER: I'd like to give my time to my fellow HOA member.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. She'll concede her time.
MR. BELLOWS: Ray Piacente.
MR. PIACENTE: What is my time limit?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't you just tell us what you -- if you're getting redundant,
we'll stop you.
MR. PIACENTE: Okay. All right.
Good morning, Chairman and fellow commissioners. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
speak with you today.
For the record, my name is Ray Piacente. I'm a resident of Northgate Village. My address is 1593
Northgate Drive. I've been a resident of Northgate Village for approximately seven-and-a-half years. I'm
also a board member of the Northgate Village HOA, and I've been asked to speak on their behalf as well as
several of the association members of our community.
Just to provide you a little history of our community, Northgate subdivision is a single-family
subdivision which is approximately 180 feet south of this parcel. Our subdivision was developed in the early
1980s, and the last phase of our development was completed in 1990.
Our subdivision abuts both Goodlette Road and Pine Ridge Road and our immediate neighbors to the
south are Moorings Park and Big Cypress Estates, which was originally associated with the Country Club of
Naples.
Our current residential home values in our neighborhood vary from approximately 450,000 to over
800,000.
We acknowledge and understand that the subject matter being discussed today is a hearing on a
proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan; however, based on our review and understanding of the
proposed changes, there are several proposed changes that are very specific and not generalized as you would
see in a typical petition dealing with a Comprehensive Plan change.
If these changes are approved to allow for more ease in obtaining approval for the proposed changes
and the zoning for the subject parcel, we feel that these types of requested changes should be vetted out
through more appropriate application and public hearing process such as a change in zoning to the PUD.
November 16, 2017
Page 36 of 69
We would like to take this time and opportunity to voice our concerns and comments for the record
so that these can be carried forward through our process and upcoming zoning change to the PUD. We
understand and acknowledge that these things do change and that a unit owner may need to change their
strategy to address current and future market conditions; however, as a unit owner, we should be allowed to
make changes to accommodate their needs. They shouldn't negate the affected unit owners to voice their
opinions in regards to new issues that need to be addressed based on actual observed conditions.
Below is the following list of comments and concerns that we have. Number one is traffic. Based on
our review of the published traffic study, it appears that the proposed alternate design to include residential
apartments would provide a slight decrease in the p.m. trips. It is our opinion that the traffic patterns between
commercial and residential are very different, and with this potential change in use, it would certainly have an
impact on both Goodlette-Frank and Pine Ridge Road.
The current plaza is mostly vacant at this time, so the traffic for the current commercial use is very
light. Pine Ridge Road is already a congested roadway, and any increase in traffic will impact our
neighborhood's travel through the community -- sorry -- lost my -- and increase the traffic noise.
All of the subdivisions that need a sound barrier wall, our subdivision should be on the top of the list.
We are baffled why the county has not made the right decision to install a sound barrier wall along our
subdivision as well as carrying it forward to the east along Quail Run subdivision as well.
The current wall that is constructed for our neighborhood is just a typical 4- to 6-foot privacy wall
that was initially designed/installed when Pine Ridge was just a two-lane roadway.
With the proposed alternate design to include residential apartments, this parcel could develop into a
mixed-use development which could be similar to the likes of a Mercato. With this possibility, we have
concerns with amplified noise and restaurants turning into nightclubs or after-hour clubs.
Our neighborhood has had first-hand experience in this nightmare scenario with local restaurants that
turn into a nightclub and have amplified music in the evening and late-night hours. Examples include
Noodles and the former Caz (phonetic) bar. The only protection of our rights is the noise ordinance, which
has not provided us satisfactory results to date. We've had to enlist the help of both Collier County Code
Enforcement and local police to fight the noise and disruption from these establishments.
We find it hard to believe how this proposed use is compatible to our subdivision where our resident
homes are less than 180 feet from this parcel. Including an amplified sound provision, an upcoming zoning
change to the PUD must be done.
The actual location of the commercial enterprises and their accessible doors and windows within this
parcel should be specifically identified and addressed so that any noise can be directed away from our
subdivision.
Our third concern is building heights. With the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan, it
appears that the proposed alternate design to include residential units would allow for four stories over
parking which, in reality, is a five-story building. The current PUD only allows three stories with a max
height of 50 feet. Our viewpoint to the north will certainly be impacted.
We would ask that any residential development be designed further north of the parcel so that our
line of sight remains the same and that the future zoning change in the PUD would have a clear demarcation
of where this development would occur so that our line of sight is not negatively impacted.
And, finally, our last concern with -- due to the increase of potential traffic or flow along Pine Ridge
Road is that our subdivision is in close proximity to the Pine Ridge Middle School. And since we're in close
proximity to this school, there is no bus pickup or drop-off. So most of our middle school students do exit a
gate through our privacy wall and cross over Pine Ridge Road to enter the school via -- with the help of -- or
assistance of a crossing guard.
So that is our concerns, for the record. We do want this parcel to be successful and would
respectively ask that this commission and petitioner to acknowledge our concerns and make every effort in
addressing these and hope that an agreed-upon compromise can be made between the Commission, our
elected officials, our petitioner -- the petitioner and our association.
As previously noted, if a unit owner is allowed to make changes to accommodate their needs, this
shouldn't negate the affected unit owners' rights to voice their opinions regarding new issues that may be
November 16, 2017
Page 37 of 69
addressed based on actual observed conditions. Most of our units (sic) have made a lifestyle decision to
move into a family-oriented neighborhood, which has maintained an increased home value within a great
school district, located near the beach, and within close proximity to the shops and retail centers like the
petition that is being reviewed today. Let's not make the mistakes or error in judgment of the past continue.
Let's do the right thing and address these comments and concerns.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Ray, how high of a sound wall would you need?
MR. PIACENTE: I would suggest that it would be consistent with some of the other sound barrier
walls, like on --
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Like Wyndemere on 41 on the other side of --
MR. PIACENTE: Right, like Livingston Road and Santa Barbara.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Those things are about 12 feet, 15 feet high.
MR. PIACENTE: Right. We would probably be acceptable to that size.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, the only comment I want to make is I made notes of the issues
you raised, and I would hope that I'd see you when the PUD comes through, because I think, as I explained
when we met, a lot of these issues are PUD resolved.
The density is a -- the density issue is the primary issue they're here for today, the switch in uses.
And I -- you know, we don't put amplified sound issues and setbacks and like that into the GMP, necessarily.
We wait for the zoning to happen at adoption, so...
MR. PIACENTE: Right. I understand that. We just wanted to get our concerns noted for the
record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm glad you did, because it will put the applicant on notice that they
need to address them before they even come in, because when they come in, they'll be addressed again. So I
appreciate it.
Anybody else?
MR. PIACENTE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. PIACENTE: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Cindy?
MS. BIJAN: I had planned to give my minutes to Ray.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'll ask the applicant if they want to have any rebuttal or
summary, either way, whatever you want to...
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, I don't think we have a direct rebuttal, but we're happy to answer any
addition questions that you may have now that you've heard public speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, his questions, I would -- or his points, I would strongly recommend to
you to address before you come back here with a PUD, because right now I'm unsettled with what you're
asking. I don't believe you've done a very good job of addressing the market. You certainly haven't done a
very good job in answering my questions. I know you tried. But that isn't -- I'm still uncomfortable with the
traffic.
But this is transmittal, and there's some flexibility there. So I'm willing to go along with it, but I
would ask that you guys try to cover your bases better on the issues that have been raised today.
MR. ARNOLD: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know Mr. Yovanovich is smiling like that's been done. And it may
have been done to your satisfaction. It certainly hasn't been done to mine.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I don't like being called out like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't need you making --
MR. YOVANOVICH: We have never ever not met with our neighbors. You didn't hear me say
November 16, 2017
Page 38 of 69
we're not going to meet with the neighbors. We fully expect to meet with Mr. Piacente and whoever he
represents to do the best that we can to address their concerns. That's all I'm saying. And we have not had
that opportunity to date to have that done, okay?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I'm saying is he put some points on record. You can address those
before you even come back --
MR. YOVANOVICH: We will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is all I'm suggesting.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We absolutely will. We've always done that. That's our standard operating
procedure. We don't always agree, but we do meet and discuss.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions or comments? If not, we'll close
the public hearing and I'll be -- well, first of all, for -- if there's any discussion or however you want to handle
it.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have a couple of items.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: After listening to you guys talk about NIM and who said
what and when they said it and unknown speaker, and I can't tell this and I can't tell that, I go back to, we
should do a video of the NIMs because that way you know who said what and where. Okay. That's just my
point of view.
I keep hearing from everybody that malls are on the way out, because of Internet. And I remember
Grand Central Station for a long time, and even Ned alluded to the fact that maybe you shouldn't build out
your shopping because it's going to be a losing proposition.
So I'm thinking the logical thing to put here would be -- you know, you've got an industrial park here.
You've got shopping diagonally. Multifamily doesn't sound bad to me here. But I guess maybe there are
some issues that have to be resolved.
I was going to ask Norm to do a little summation of where he gets his numbers from. I know he
didn't pull them out of his -- out of thin air -- out of thin air but, you know, I thought he did a pretty good job.
You know, I used this standard and that standard, and we're required to use these standards.
So it seems like, you know -- I made a joke that -- the old engineering saying is if it's
mathematics -- if it's incomprehensible, it's mathematics. If it doesn't make sense, it's economics or
transportation. You know, I kind of see where maybe you don't understand where they got the numbers, but
they're limited in how they do this. It's the engineering standards that you have to apply.
And, you know, unless we're willing to start talking moratorium on these roads, you know, I don't
see where you have a choice but to do -- you know, the guy wants to go from a losing proposition to what I've
heard from staff is, you know, we need more apartments. So I don't have a problem with this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only caveat I want to say, Stan, my questioning was centered around
the fact that they're requesting more density than is allowed by the Growth Management Plan, which would
set the basis for the road system and everything else we have in Collier County.
I have been concerned, I still am concerned, on how that is impacted by allowing 130 units over the
245. I think that's approximately what it is. That's almost 50 percent more. That's the issue of my concern.
We've heard traffic engineers come before us for all these years, and every one says, we've
got -- we're doing better than what we could do; therefore, we're not going to have a problem with the road.
You know, we've got roads that are problems. You can't drive out here and say they're not. They are. And it
hasn't gotten any better, and it may not get better. I just want to make sure we're not going to arbitrarily make
it worse, and that's their job to prove.
And at this point I'm willing to support the transmittal, but there's going to be a lot more hard
questions at adoption to finalize things.
Transmittal is something that is a -- basically a test to see how it floats, and it only needs three votes
from the Board, and then it comes back to us with more detail with the PUD and the adoption.
So I'm willing to go that far, but I think the questions are going to be just as hard at that level.
November 16, 2017
Page 39 of 69
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many more times do you think we'll see this?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Once more. I would expect that the PUD and the adoption would come
through at the same time unless -- Ray's nodding yes, so that's normally what we do.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Are you saying the 245 is what you're looking at?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm -- the 375 --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: If you're concerned about that traffic, that would alleviate --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- traffic, because if they develop commercial right now, all of it,
they have a certain amount of trips, and there's not -- and that's -- you can't change that now, but -- and if you
add the 375 with commercial, the trips stay the same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: If you drop the residential number, there would be less traffic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What they're proposing is to build residential in lieu of commercial, and
that's --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. But leave some of the commercial.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. It's already built.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm willing to go forward, for my vote at least, to see what they've got to
say when they come back on adoption with a detailed PUD to see how this fits together.
I've put everything I had in mind on the record today as far as concerns and questions. I don't believe
they met the standard for the market study, but they can clean it up by adoption.
I still don't understand enough of this transportation stuff, but I'm going to get together with Mr.
Sawyer between now and then and try to learn more. The transportation is the biggest issue.
But we have the absolute ability, when it comes back for adoption and PUD, to change it at both
those levels to whatever is proven to be the right thing to do at that time.
So for the benefit of the doubt -- and I didn't hear an objection to the density. I heard an objection to
various compatibility issues -- not objections -- concerns that we can -- that we can make sure they're met. So
from that perspective, I'm willing to go along with it until we get to the next level, and that's my position. I
don't know if that's what you were trying to say, Karen, or not, but that's where I'm coming from, so...
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? With that --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chair, I'm in complete agreement with your comments, and I'm
going to vote, I think, the same way, for transmittal earnest hopes that when it does come back a lot of these
issues will be favorably resolved.
One thing that I would ask, that as these types of things are considered in the future with respect to
transportation, that we -- that staff places some emphasis or at least covers the comparison to current actual
conditions as well as what the developer could have done under the already approved development.
And the other thing that was mentioned in the NIM that I didn't hear very much of today has to do
with what time of day is important. And right now we look at p.m. peak. And, of course, that is significant.
But when you move from commercial to residential, you're going to create, potentially, a rush hour problem
as well, because I don't think all the folks living in the residential area are going to be walking to work. And
so early in the morning and late at night you're going to increase your traffic congestion on an already highly
congested road. So those are my comments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else before we vote?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Talking about p.m. peak. I have asked transportation to start
doing a.m. peak hours and directional traffic, because I'm seeing a lot going the other way. It's not just p.m.
peak. I think we need to start doing some a.m. peak hour also.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The thing is, people tend to leave their houses in the
morning all different times. I used to leave an hour early just to get into the office early to avoid a little bit
traffic. But too many businesses just -- five o'clock. The county, five o'clock, that's it. Everybody leaves at
November 16, 2017
Page 40 of 69
the same time. So they tend to go with p.m. peak for that reason.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: We need a.m., too.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But it won't show you any more than p.m. peak, I'm pretty
sure, but okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we've all had our discussion. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move we approve it for recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners for transmittal to the state.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
Thank you all, for the enjoyable training this morning, most notably is the transportation part of it.
So with that, it's 11:45. We are not going to get through the GL Homes process quickly. There's a
lot of issues on that one that need to be discussed, just for the record.
So I would suggest we take an hour lunch, and then come back and finish that one up when we come
back. How do the rest of you feel?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sounds right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll break now from 11:45, and we'll return at 12:45 after lunch.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Welcome back from our lunch break. We have two items
left on the agenda. They are both about the same project, so we will discuss them concurrently, and we'll
vote on them separately.
***The first one is Item 9C. It's PL20160001100. It's the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee
Road -- well, this one is the Growth Management Plan amendment, and the PL20160001089, same location,
Logan/Immokalee Road for the CPUD for the Planned Unit Development ordinance, and it's the GL Homes
commercial tract that we're looking at.
So with that in mind, will everybody wishing to testify on behalf of this item please rise to be sworn
in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the Planning Commission. We'll start down with Tom.
MR. EASTMAN: Nothing other than things that are part of the public record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. About that, yeah. I think some emails, but I don't
think I talked to anybody about it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Emails.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, I talked with Mr. Ratterree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I had met with the applicant's representatives earlier this week.
I'd talked to -- I met with a neighbor from Saturnia Lakes yesterday. I talked to various staff members about
the project, talked to John Nicola before the project started this morning, and I think that's all other than the
typical emails and files that we've gotten.
November 16, 2017
Page 41 of 69
Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Patrick?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just typical.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Bruce, it's all yours. Did you want to say something, did
you say?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Bruce, I want to acknowledge that this is your last meeting with
us, because you are retiring, and you won't be with us in December. But I wanted to say thank you for being
with us all this time. I appreciate it.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: We will miss you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I emphatically endorse what she said. You've been a pleasure to work with,
Bruce. And I know we're not -- contrary to you, he'll be back, and he's going to use anything we say now
saying, remember, I'm always right. You said that, so -- but he's been --
MR. ANDERSON: I promised myself I would not become a commission groupie.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whose district do you live in?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I echo those sentiments and hope that we didn't drive you to an early
retirement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the gray hair. I knew him when he had regular colored hair.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just the newest commissioner up there, that's all. I kind of drove
him crazy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's all yours, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Cheffy Passidomo law firm. I represent the
commercial development arm of GL Homes.
As indicated previously, two applications before you, to approve a 100,000-square-foot upscale
shopping center at the southeast corner of the intersection of Logan Boulevard and Immokalee Road.
You may recall that one of these applications, the one for the Growth Management Plan amendment,
was heard by the Planning Commission in early April and was unanimously approved by this body and the
Board of County Commissioners. And after review by the State, it's back here for final adoption.
I want to introduce a few members of the project team that are here with me to help answer
questions: Kevin Ratterree, vice president of GL Homes; Michael Friedman, who's the president of GL's
commercial division; and from Stantec I have Tim Hancock and Jeff Perry.
GL has developed several communities along Logan Boulevard about a mile north of this shopping
center, and one of the things that they heard from the people who bought in their communities is that they
want to have a shopping center that's closer to where they live, especially one that has a grocery store and
restaurants.
A lease has been signed with a grocery chain that is new to the Naples market. I understand it's not
much of a secret, but I can't say the name.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean you can't say Sprouts Market? Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: And I am under oath, so I won't deny it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think their website's saying it.
MR. ANDERSON: That's what I heard.
In addition to the required neighborhood meeting, neighborhood information meeting, GL also held a
number of informal meetings with residents of Saturnia Lakes, Old Cypress, Riverstone, and Longshore
Lakes to share their plans and solicit feedback.
The shopping center has received support letters and emails from area residents which were included
in the packet for the transmittal hearing, but I don't believe they are in the packet for the adoption hearing. I
do have a letter of support from the Saturnia Lakes Homeowners Association, and I'd like to read this into the
November 16, 2017
Page 42 of 69
record. It's addressed to Mr. Ratterree. And it says, on behalf of the residents of Saturnia Lakes community,
we would like to extend our sincere thanks for your efforts to keep them well informed of your future plans.
You and your team made an excellent presentation and took the time to answer any and all questions.
We are excited about the prospect of an upscale commercial property in close proximity to our
community. We are pleased that GL Homes will be the developer, knowing firsthand your reputation for
quality and reliability.
Please keep us updated on your progress and let us know if we can be of assistance.
I will now turn this over to Mr. Hancock to review some of the specifics of the development plan
with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, there were multiple pages to the packet you just gave Terri. Is there
something there that we haven't seen yet that you're going to put on the screen?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. All of the exhibits -- I'm sorry. For the record, Tim Hancock with
Stantec.
All of the exhibits that are being provided are also in the packet given to you as well. Some of them
may have highlights or additional notes just to make it easy to review today, though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: There were some language changes to the CPUD side that have been discussed,
very minor, but those are in the packet. You have not seen those, but they are very few and very minor in
nature, so hopefully we'll be able to go through those fairly quickly.
Thank you, Bruce.
You know, greatly appreciate, as many have mentioned, the opportunity to work with Bruce over the
years, and I'm sure this would be nice to send him out on a high note today.
The project before you has got some elements in it that I think are worthy of note, and the first one is
the graphic you see before you is what we shared with the community at the neighborhood information
meeting with the intent of showing the quality and intended architectural style. It's not a verbatim item, but it
shows and reflects the character of what is being proposed.
And this project is currently in for Site Development Plan approval as we speak as well. So I guess
you could say the rubber had to meet road for us, because if there were inconsistencies there, we would be
having to address those today.
One inconsistency is it is not Naples Village Shops. This was done many, many moons ago. The
project currently -- the name is Logan Landings, and we expect that name to make it through the process,
unlike these previous six that we tried. So hopefully that will happen.
But there are several elements of this project that really go to a design base and a quality project.
And I joked with Mr. Ratterree earlier and Mr. Friedman that there are elements in this project that over the
25-plus years I've been doing this I tried to put into commercial projects only to have the client take them out
because it cost them square footage.
And so I think as we go through this, what you're going to see is a great attention to detail. From a
site design standpoint, it's a pleasure to work with a project such as this. Well, how do you accomplish, you
know, the type of quality we're looking for in a Growth Management Plan amendment or a rezone, and the
answer, quite frankly, lies in the language before you today.
In looking at the Growth Management Plan amendment, one key is limiting the overall size of the
center to 100,000 square feet or less. Again, that is a very low per-foot rate or foot per acre for most retail
centers. Most retail centers in this location would be looking at something like 150,000 square feet. So they
intentionally kept the square footage down to focus on being more of a neighborhood center.
Secondly, in the Growth Management Plan language as well, is limiting the largest store to less than
45,000 square feet. The main reason for that, as you may recall at the transmittal hearing was, when you start
getting over that, you start to get into stores that could be more regional in nature. Not just the big boxes that
we think of, but even a 55- or 75,000-square-foot store could be more of a regional draw and move you
outside of that neighborhood focus.
Thirdly, the uses within the GMPA which are replicated in the PUD are about one-third of the
permitted and conditional uses within the C3 zoning district. So there already has been a significant
November 16, 2017
Page 43 of 69
limitation on the allowable uses in the language itself.
And you also may recall the extensive market assessment provided as part of our Growth
Management Plan amendment, which I thought was very well presented; it showed a significant demand in
the primary market area for a project of this but, equally important, it showed us where there wasn't a
demand, and those uses, again, have been specifically excluded either by name or by square footage
limitation.
So as we move forward into the CPUD, what we're doing today, really, is advancing those
limitations. We had discussions at time of transmittal about certain limitations that maybe weren't
appropriate at a GMP level but more appropriate at a zoning level, and I'd like to highlight those for you
today.
And, again, this is the document you have before you with highlights provided. Some of those
highlights include, under permitted uses, under number three, we have added language in the PUD document
that indicates that not only are auto and home supply stories -- they are permitted, but what is not permitted
are those same stores with service bays, lifts, or other facilities for installing such automotive parts. Sale of
home supplies must be accessory and secondary. Again, this keeps it to more of a retail -- to use a brand
name -- an AutoZone type use as opposed to a Goodyear Service Center. So, again, clarifying language in
the PUD to ensure compatibility.
Under Item 10, dry-cleaning plants. Unfortunately, our SIC code doesn't differentiate between what
you may see as a dry-cleaning drop-off very well versus a dry-cleaning plant. So we've added language here
that, say, we can't have -- you know, we cannot have industrial dry-cleaning. In other words, you can have
dry-cleaning. You can't have industrial. Well, what does that mean?
So we tried to go a little bit further with the help of Mr. Schmidt, and we've developed language that
says limited to contemporary, environmentally friendly, or green cleaning methods and practices.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You meant, Corby Schmidt, right?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I'm sorry, yes. Not Mr. Joe Schmitt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At first I thought, that's kind of odd. How would Joe be -- okay.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, the reason he's not here today...
No. Yes, Corby, no confusion there.
So -- but that language is intended to capture both, you know, drop-off and pickup locations where
there's no on-site, but there are currently on-site cleaners. And, again, to use a brand name, the Tide brand,
for example, is using very environmentally friendly, nonchemical processes, and we discussed that at the
NIM with the neighbors there, that we just wanted to stay away from things that had heavy chemical use and
that type of thing. So this clarification helps provide that as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want us to interrupt you with any comments we need to make as
you go through or when you finish? What would you prefer?
MR. HANCOCK: Your pleasure, sir. I'm fine either way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on the first page?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I guess the premise of my question is whether we are absolutely
locked in stone with SIC code language even when the language is misleading and outdated. And I would be
particularly concerned about not achieving absolute precision in this language, because in the prohibited uses
we are saying that anything that hasn't been explicitly permitted is prohibited.
And to that end, I guess my first concern is in No. 8, dance studios. It says, dance halls except for
dance halls. And, you know, it's clumsy, but probably not of serious concern to you, although -- let's
see -- where it is? The one having to do with -- maybe it's number -- no, No. 27. I guess that's the next page.
Should I hold off on that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Let's wait till we get there and make sure we finish the first page.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any on the first page?
(No response.)
November 16, 2017
Page 44 of 69
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I had suggested you add some language to the fourth line. I don't see
it here.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I'll be covering that as the last item of my presentation, which are any
proposed additions or deletions from the PUD document. But, yes, under Item 10, we are going to be adding
language to limit that to a maximum of 1,500 square feet. That was a suggested addition by Mr. Strain to
address the issue of making sure we don't get those big plant-type operations, and we're certainly happy to do
that, and you'll be seeing that language a little bit later.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back to my question, though, the fourth line of this page, you don't
want to talk about it now; you want to talk about it after we pass this page? Can you explain why.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I asked you to add three words. You tell me, you're not going to do
that or you're going to do that?
MR. HANCOCK: We're going to do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. The words were, on the third line at the end, it says, a
maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable area for commercial uses derived from, and I said -- I
suggested commercial uses limited to and derived from, and there was purpose for that because of the
abundance of ZVLs and other analyses that go through that change things unexplained necessarily to the
public, so...
MR. HANCOCK: What I'm seeing here is a need to change the order of my documents so we can
address both of these at the same time. So bear with me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine. I just put it on record, and we're good.
Oh, so you wanted to go over Page 1 twice. Okay, I didn't realize you were suggesting that. Gotcha.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He's being thorough.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or you could have put them all on one page with different colors if you
need be, but okay.
MR. HANCOCK: I guess when you asked if I would rather take comments during or after, I guess
I'd like to change my answer to after.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We will hold off till we finish, okay, Ned. When he finishes, we'll
ask all of our questions.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR. HANCOCK: Okay. Getting to my less accommodating way of presenting, getting back to the
things that we added to the CPUD to add further clarification beyond the GMP language, also in the PUD, on
the issue of personal services, miscellaneous, we had extensive discussion on the transmittal about the issue
of massage parlors and what that term by itself tends to carry with it, but we didn't want to preclude -- and,
again, I'm going to use brand names for the purpose of just being able to see them -- a MassageLuXe or a
Massage Envy. There's more of a day spa.
So the language we worked with staff on and came up with, and, again, that would be Mr. Corby
Schmidt, were to add the clarification that other establishments which could not be construed as a sexually
oriented business as defined in the Collier County ordinance and is part of an establishment such as a day spa
providing other legitimate personal services or fitness facilities.
Again, and, Mr. Fryer, this is where we get to your concern of the imperfection of using SIC codes,
and we do the best we can to narrow down when necessary. So that was the attempt here.
And, again, the whole purpose of these further limitations is to increase compatibility, taking the
Growth Management Plan language which was approved for transmittal and building on that to achieve what
we hope to achieve with the neighbors is a higher degree of compatibility.
Additional measures are contained in the document, and one of those keys among achieving
compatibility through design was the distance from the actual physical structures within the shopping to the
nearest residential units within Saturnia Lakes.
Again, going back to an exhibit that was used at time of transmittal, within the PUD in the
development standards, we require minimum separation or rear yard setback from the structures within the
November 16, 2017
Page 45 of 69
shopping center to the property line adjacent to Saturnia Lakes of 300 feet. Now, that's within the site. So
you've got lake, you've got preserve, and then when you get to the actual Saturnia Lakes development, which
is south and east of us, you've got additional preserve, which is recorded on their property.
And so what you can see here is there is well over 500 feet of separation between the rear of the
shopping center and the nearest residential unit in Saturnia Lakes.
Additional project benefits that have been included in the PUD are we are granting a 15-foot utility
easement at the request of the Collier County Public Utilities along Logan Boulevard. That is for future utility
lines if needed, and that is being done at no cost to Collier County.
Using the site plan that just has a little bit of color added to it to highlight this point, the project is
also providing landscape, hardscape, and interior landscaping elements that are well in excess of the
minimum code requirements.
Under Item 4 on Page 10 of the CPUD document, you will see on Items A through D a total
allocation of more than 30,000 square feet of foundation plantings, specialty paving, parking lot landscaping,
and additional green space, and these are all being provided in excess of the code requirements.
We also have, through the Site Development Plan process, showed trees that are in excess of code
between the lake and the vehicular use area (indicating) providing additional landscape and buffering where
one is not required by code.
Additionally, we have even included lighting requirements. And they really are to typify what you
kind of see here, which is specialty lighting to be provided in these open courtyard and gathering spaces to,
again, accentuate the quality of the project.
We've proposed as well an attractive and unified architectural theme which will be present
throughout the buildings and grounds to create the attractive and welcoming statement that was presented to
the neighbors. The goal of this project is not just to create a place to come do some shopping but to create a
space that encourages a more leisurely activation of the public spaces, providing for spaces to interact with
others.
Even the deviations sought on Page 9 of the document are focused on quality design elements.
Deviation No. 1 on Page 9 is to allow for a project identification sign at the corner. And I think it's important
to note this is a project ID sign. It's not allowed to have any tenant information on it whatsoever. A detail of
that sign has been included as a final exhibit in your PUD document.
Again, the purpose here is to orient the center focally toward the corner and toward the intersection
and to prevent (sic) a welcoming statement and something that is architecturally pleasing, and I think it does a
fine job of doing that.
Deviation No. 2 -- and I offer this exhibit with the green triangles because sometimes the master
concept plans have a lot on them, and it's kind of difficult to differentiate between one marker and the next.
But Deviation No. 2 is really to allow outparcel signage, just like any outparcel would be allowed to have;
however, because the project may not be divided, the lots may not be sold, they may be retained in ownership
by GL, we wouldn't have an ability to have signage.
So this is simply to allow for signage for each of those four outparcel buildings consistent with the
code as if they were outparcels. But when -- again, when you don't plat, you don't have that opportunity.
And the last one -- and this was the deviation that I felt probably needed the most graphic
representation. The last one is to include a significant water feature that we've gotten very positive feedback
from the community on the corner with ideal signage, to then turn around and put a shade tree every 30 feet,
within five to seven years of growth, would actually block the feature entirely.
So what we have requested under Deviation No. 3 is the ability to cluster the trees at specific
intervals to allow for openings and views of the water feature and the project itself but offering no reduction
in the required number of trees. It's just simply a clustering application with 60-foot view windows leading
into the site.
And now, Commissioner Strain, I'm going to get to the part of the additions or deletions or changes
to the document that we are proposing. And they are minor and very few in nature, so I'll go through them.
On Page 1, the first highlight you see at the top of the sheet is to add the language after commercial
uses that reads, limited to and derived from the permitted and conditional uses of the C3 zoning district. This
November 16, 2017
Page 46 of 69
was a clarification that was suggested to us, we felt was appropriate, so we've added that language and are
proposing to make that change.
Under Item 10, dry-cleaning plants, we've offered a further clarification to limit the maximum size to
1,500 square feet and as we discussed, that's trying to avoid the idea of a dry-cleaning plant, and a size
limitation is a reasonable manner and to which -- to make sure that that does not happen.
The next change, again, is a further clarification. We talked about the 300-foot building setback on
the standards table, and what we're suggesting is to add in parentheses that setback is measured from the
property line to principal and accessory uses. The reason for that clarification is there are sometimes things
that are deemed to be structures that are not actual principal or accessory uses. One example might be, you
know, some type of water management structure that exceed 30 inches in height. We just didn't want to get
caught in the unknown. So what we're saying is any principal or accessory structure has to be at least 300
feet from the property line adjoining Saturnia Lakes.
The next item that is a clarification is our Development Standards Table rolled onto a second page.
And as you got to that second page, without a header it was a little difficult to see what that actually applied
to.
And so I looked at that. If you look at the Development Standards Table, what it talks about -- that
you see here is actually applied to a section of minimum setbacks from internal property lines. In other words,
should the property at some point in the future be subdivided, we wanted to make sure that our setbacks didn't
apply just to the perimeter, but also to any internal property lines created as well.
So this will probably get made a little clearer if we can combine that table up onto the previous page.
But one thing I didn't notice is the statement of having a principal setback under that, well, it was already
addressed in the lines above it, so that just needs to be deleted. But the other two are just to state that an
accessory setback within a lot created inside the development has a setback of 10 feet, and any preserve
setback would be 25 feet.
Under Note No. 1, we offer, again, clarification language that states simply that no matter how the
setbacks are measured -- because in some places you have a setback that is less than 20 feet, and if you are
adjacent to a lake, we didn't want it to appear as if we were trying to put structures within a lake maintenance
easement. So we wanted to clarify that no setbacks shall allow placement of structures within the lake
maintenance easements.
That is the -- let's see. Oh, Page 11. And the last item we have that we're requesting this body
consider as a part of their action on this document is under development standards, we did get a request from
the folks in the estates that lie to our west that any of the monument and directory signs along Logan
Boulevard be limited to a height of no more than 15 feet, and GL has agreed to that, and this is the language
that would accomplish that as well.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, those are the changes that we have proposed as a part of the document
that is before you today, and I'll be happy to address any questions you may have, both I and members of our
team as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I commend you on the project and also on your willingness
to work with the residents nearby to achieve some compromises and some concessions for their quality of
life.
There's one point that I want to raise, though, that is troubling. It's not sufficiently troubling to cause
me to vote one way or another, but I think a record needs to be made on this point because of how the project
is referred to as upscale. And upscale sounds great, and it is great. We all think of, perhaps, Mercato, and the
idea of having upscale venues of this sort, commercial venues, is appealing; however, we are kind of co -- we
as the county and the residents nearby are kind of co-risk-takers with the developer on the success of this
venture because, undoubtedly, if -- and we hope this is not the case. But if the developer is unable to lease
the space to a sufficient number of upscale operations to make money in the near term, they'll be right back
before us and the County Commission looking for more relaxed usages. And I just think it's worth
November 16, 2017
Page 47 of 69
mentioning that we're all going in this as co-risk-takers.
MR. HANCOCK: I appreciate your comments. I do want to point out that in all of our presentations
when we refer to the upscale nature of the center, we have tried to tie that back to physical design elements
that will help achieve that objective.
Unfortunately, when we start talking about specific end-users, what you and I may consider to be
upscale becomes somewhat of a nebulous conversation.
So we tried to look at the physical design parameters that zoning could address. And if you push
those elements forward, they will drive -- they will simply drive a rent that doesn't support or substantiate,
you know, a lesser end of the use spectrum. We hope that that is the case. But the one thing that gives me
greater comfort -- and I do appreciate your initial comments about working with the neighbors, and while I
would love to take all the credit in the world for that comment, I can't. I have to give it to GL.
Mr. Ratterree and Mr. Friedman have been extremely -- I don't even want to say accommodating.
But they realize that this is a partnership with the neighborhoods, and they started very early and very often
meeting with them.
So one of the things we ran through is somebody would say, well, I want this end-user, but not this
one, and that becomes problematic. So I just want to point out that I think what we're trying to do is use the
zoning regulations that are available to us to force a design element that contributes to the quality. And, quite
candidly, I think that's the extent to which we have the ability to do that. Your comments are noted, sir. I
understand.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
Item 27 of permissible uses says, records and prerecorded tape stores. And I scratch my head and
say, what are those? And I'm just --
MR. HANCOCK: Well, based on your youth, I can understand that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm concerned that you might be locking yourself into -- particularly
the way this is set up, because any use that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited, and you're not mentioning
DVD and CDs or --
MR. HANCOCK: I think there's one Blockbuster remaining in the U.S., if I'm not mistaken.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: My only question is, is are you sure you want to limit yourself to
something that is really an anachronism?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Vinyl is making a comeback.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They'll probably go back to videotapes, too. Vinyl records.
MR. HANCOCK: Believe it or not, there have been some -- now are upscale record stores that are
reproducing vinyl, and they're doing it in collaboration with -- for example, might be a coffee bar/record
store. And so I won't tell you that was the intent that I had this great vision that that's going to occur and
we're going to put it there. But to be honest, we saw it as a fairly innocuous use. And if it were to occur in
this place, it would be something rather unique. But, again, I think -- I think there's a better chance of getting
a record store there than DVD store.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Probably so.
My next concern is the prohibited uses. And the third paragraph is a puzzler to me. I don't really
understand what is being said here. The first two paragraphs do specify uses that are prohibited, and then the
third paragraph says any of the foregoing uses that are subject to a gross floor area limitation by Collier
County Land Development Code shall be permitted by right without the maximum floor area limitation. It
doesn't sound like a prohibition to me. Is it out of place? What does it mean?
MR. HANCOCK: It may be out of place. Maybe there's another place that that wording makes a
little more sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 33.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we do that in the standard sections of our code for straight zoning,
so why don't you just put it in No. 33 and that covers it.
MR. HANCOCK: I think that clarifies it.
MR. STONE: Mr. Chair?
November 16, 2017
Page 48 of 69
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. STONE: Is this working?
It may not be appropriate to have it as No. 33 simply because it's not a use. I mean, I know that we
usually put comparable information in as numbers, but if it was a number or not, I do believe you're right, it
should go above permitted uses. I just wanted to point it out that it doesn't necessarily have to be a number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I was using it that way is that's how we do it -- we have
three catchalls under our straight zoning sections, and they're like that. So I thought it would be appropriate.
But it doesn't matter anyway. If you just don't want a number, just put it as a blank sentence, that would
cover it.
MR. HANCOCK: That was going to be my suggestion. Instead of numbering it 33, why don't we
move it up below 32 as a paragraph stand alone, and that way it's clarifying the above uses, if that's
acceptable.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That makes more sense to me that way.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Under Exhibit F, ordinance Exhibit F, with respect to traffic, it says,
the project shall not exceed a maximum of 449 net new p.m. peak-hour two-way trips. And my question is, is
how on Earth is that enforced?
MR. HANCOCK: Well, each time that the project comes in for Site Development Plan review,
whether it be in a single phase or multiple phases, each one takes the square footage and has to submit a new
Traffic Impact Statement that takes the uses that are proposed and gives a correlating number of net new p.m.
peak hour trips.
The county, in essence, every time you amend your SDP, builds on the previous TIS so that they
track the number of new trips. And if we come in on Round 3 of 3 with a 450 first trip or 450th trip, that's
where we get stopped and we have to reduce square footage or take measures to get the trip numbers back
into the zone.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does the county have a mechanism to go back and say you need to
trim back your project?
MR. HANCOCK: Well, it's a limitation just like anything else in the PUD. So we're required at
SDP to comply with it. So it really -- it's just a ceiling threshold that we have to comply with.
MS. ASHTON: We have some other PUDs where we've started to add the language, because it's
determined at time of SDP or plat. So we can add the revised language that I recently used that will tie -- that
traffic language gets tied down at SDP or plat. It's not like in 10 years you're going to clock the trips and say,
oh, no, we've got a code enforcement issue. That's not how staff applies it. So we can look -- Mr. Stone will
provide the revised language.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
And the last question I have -- and I've raised this before in other projects -- No. 5 of Exhibit F, the
monitoring report, what is allowed to happen here is the managing entity, which is an entity that generally
speaking we would be familiar with and have confidence in because it was the real developer in interest, but
as time passes, it can then organize a shell corporation and a non-capitalized corporation, transfer all
responsibilities of monitoring to that entity that, as I say, it could be simply a shell, and thereby excuse itself
from any responsibility. Now I realize this is language of long standing, but to me it makes the monitoring
report really almost meaningless.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, the language you see before you actually is not that old, because we used to
have a different problem with all of our monitoring reports -- was that each individual, as you would transfer
lots and ownership, you might have 10 or 12 different reporting entities within a single PUD. That was a
nightmare. As someone who does PUD monitoring reports, you know, the question -- it was problematic.
What the county has done is at least dialed it back to make sure there is a single entity that is
responsible for the monitoring report, which I think has added more clarity and less confusion. Not to say it's
perfect, but this is language we are provided, in essence.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand, yeah. You didn't come up with this.
I'm just -- I'm being critical of the language because I think it leaves this -- the obligations, it leaves
November 16, 2017
Page 49 of 69
them open to being canceled simply by virtue of the successor, the assignee being incapable of carrying out
the responsibilities. You can't look back at the managing entity because it's been excused.
MR. HANCOCK: From a personal standpoint, I have yet to see the county not threaten one of my
clients with code enforcement action for failure to file a PUD monitoring report in a timely fashion. So if you
do not file, if you -- someone is going to get a code enforcement action, and it's going to be the property
owner of record, and then they will have to respond to that code enforcement action for failure to file. So that
has been my personal experience with the path that's on should you not file in a timely fashion.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm not saying there's anything you should have done or should
be doing. This is language that's standard. It's boilerplate, but I do have a problem with it. Those are my only
questions, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Could you either -- add under prohibited uses sexually oriented
businesses or either add it to 2, 25, and 27?
MR. HANCOCK: I believe sexually oriented businesses are disallowed by code. Oh, no, there's
requirements of minimum separation. Okay.
So what we're suggesting is, basically, under prohibited uses, if we take that language that was
proposed that says sexually oriented uses as, you know, identified in Collier County code, that they would be
a prohibited use, would that satisfy your question?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, if that applies to all the permitted uses.
MR. HANCOCK: Then, yes, I think if we add that language under prohibited uses, it would stand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I got a few, Tim.
The first one is you cleaned up everything we talked about. Oh, on the master plan, do you have any
objection under the bottom of it where the Stantec logo is, it says, master concept plan, could you just drop
the word "concept" and say "master plan"?
One of your peers has decided anytime it actually says "concept," you can actually change the zoning
of the land around it; they're making that argument. So this is just to avoid any trouble like that.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you say that again?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cna I say what again?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: What you just said.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All of it? Can you read it back to me? No, I'm just kidding.
MR. HANCOCK: What I heard is one of my professional colleagues has created a problem for me,
so we're going to take the word "concept" --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had to start on this lately because it got to be a pretty argumentative
situation. And, you know, even -- we had to turn to the County Attorney's Office, and they concur, you can't
change zoning simply by saying it was concept and that those lines don't mean anything. They do.
And I know you don't have exactly the situation here, but actually it came up about a water
management lake kind of like yours. And I want to make sure the people in Saturnia Lakes and to the south
don't have to worry about that lake becoming a building.
MR. HANCOCK: We will remove the word "concept" from the master plan, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
The other thing, I talked to Mr. Sawyer, who just is anxious to come up and start getting into a long
and heavy transportation discussion right now. So, Mike, would you mind coming up. It's kind of something
that involves you and them both, so I'd like your explanation of a couple things first.
And then I notice you've got Jeff Perry here, and he's probably wondering what tangent we're going
to get off on TISs today.
MR. HANCOCK: As soon as you said transportation, sir, I started packing up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got more of you. I just want to get this one done with Mike since we're
November 16, 2017
Page 50 of 69
on the master plan.
Mike, I'd asked you to take a look at the issue concerning the -- well, let's start with the first scenario.
The first scenario is at some point in the future Logan is going to expand. It's two-lane road now, and I
believe it's going to be possibly a maximum of four lanes or whatever you guys come up with your TISs to
say it's supposed to be.
And I was looking at the left turn lane now for Saturnia. Saturnia can make a left on the two-lane
road right now, and I imagine the shopping center would probably like to be able to do the same thing. But
my impression from what I've heard from the neighbors is that there's -- only one of you is going to get that
opportunity. The first one to get it is the one that's going to exclude the other. Can you explain that scenario.
MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning.
I actually looked at both access points, the one for the shopping center itself and then also Saturnia
Lakes. I believe the distance between the proposed shopping center, which is currently being used, I believe,
by the nursery, approximately the same location, and Saturnia Lakes, there's about 17 -- 1,750 feet to 1,800
feet, roughly. That's plenty of room to have access points for both locations.
The only possible question would be whether or not -- if Logan ever is expanded to four lanes,
whether they would be able to maintain a full opening at that location.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What location?
MR. SAWYER: For the shopping center, pardon. For the shopping. The location for that currently
is at --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Saturnia.
MR. SAWYER: -- Saturnia Lakes. At this point I see absolutely no reason that it wouldn't be able
to be kept, the only exception might be is if there is some sort of health/safety issue that crops up in the
future, and I can't anticipate that, quite honestly.
What we would do, when and if Logan ever does get expanded to a four-lane segment, there will be
meetings with the public before we go through with that, there will be plans that are done both at initial layout
for the road, then we would go into 30, 60, 90 set plans, and there would be meetings with the public.
Generally speaking, when people have full openings on a four-lane segment like that, we try and retain them
if we can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how far down the road do you see Logan potentially being
expanded to four lanes?
MR. SAWYER: Honestly, it is not currently on any of our long-range plans at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not on the 2040 LRTP?
MR. SAWYER: No, it is not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. So practically everybody in this room will be gone by then.
MR. SAWYER: I know I certainly will be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will be, okay.
MR. SAWYER: Trinity just corrected me. It is in the needs plan for 2040, but it isn't in the
cost-feasible plan, so...
Yes, it is showing up on the radar. We do have enough adequate right-of-way in order to do the
four-lane segment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I appreciate your research on that point. I have one other point.
Right now the master plan -- and the condition right now is the two-lane road, I believe. There's
little -- on the master plan that they've got in the PUD, it shows a right turn and a left turn out of the shopping
center onto Logan. And it looks like there's a median break pictured on -- or maybe just white lines on
asphalt allowing that to happen. I don't know if the developer would agree to it. From a transportation
perspective, I wanted to make you aware when the people -- the people I've talked to, when they come in and
out of Saturnia and doing their lefts, they have a difficult time with -- you know, you can go right on red, and
there's a lot of traffic volume coming off of Immokalee Road, and so they have to wait until there's enough of
a break to make a left-hand turn safely even in the two-lane condition.
Is there anything that would prohibit us from requesting from the developer to put a pork chop in that
Logan entry so that they can't make a left on that; they can only go right?
November 16, 2017
Page 51 of 69
Do you guys, from a traffic viewpoint, have any issues with that? I don't mind the left in. It's the left
out that's causing the conflict with the Saturnia.
MR. SAWYER: Right. I understand. It certainly would, to a degree, change slightly the traffic
patterns that we reviewed as part of the TIS. Generally speaking, limiting left-outs from a project is a safer
condition, quite honesty. So lefts-in aren't a problem. Left-outs do tend to have more of a conflict
opportunity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll bring the next questions up to the developer.
MR. SAWYER: It's possible. We could certainly look at that at the time of SDP. That would be
more of an operational, quite honestly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. I wanted to see what we could do. Thank you.
Tim, I'll try to get back to finish my questions up. Do you have any objection, or does your client
have any objection to limiting your out onto Logan as a right-out only, and maybe a left-in but a right-out?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, we would object to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you wouldn't like a left-out? A left-out won't work for you guys?
MR. HANCOCK: We need the left-out on Logan at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that is an -- and I'm sure there are Saturnia people here.
We'll have to hear their thoughts on that, but I know that's been expressed to me as the most serious concern
for them.
MR. HANCOCK: And while we recognize the concern, we looked very carefully at the spacing of
the two intersections, and even under the current classification, which is a seven for this roadway, there really
are no standards. But even if you were to apply a much higher standard, such as a four, we would still meet
that standard for a left-out.
So while I recognize it may be a perceived issue from a transportation operations standpoint, we
don't believe the issue exists.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this isn't -- well, okay. Let's go back to that long TIS discussion I had
this morning with the other project. What you believe exists may not be what's happening on the ground for
people who have to experience it every day, just like the two worst roads in Collier County, which are
Immokalee and Pine Ridge Road.
You're feeding directly off of Immokalee Road. People are going to be pouring onto this road. People
coming out of Saturnia on a two-lane condition have a hard enough time maneuvering the breaks in traffic
just as it is today.
All I'm asking is, just today, just as the road, two-lane condition is today, do you have any problem
prohibiting a left-out? I understand based on Mike's testimony you could qualify, potentially, for a light at
that location due to distance in the future, which would give you the left-out. It's a temporary situation until
Logan's expanded. And you're saying you can't agree to that?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. We have current leasing obligations based on a certain set of conditions
that could be jeopardized if that traffic pattern were to change. And we wouldn't have entered those leasing
conditions had our traffic analysis not shown that it is not a problem.
That being said, I think one of the concerns about turning left out of Saturnia Lakes onto Logan at
this time is more of an a.m. concern than a p.m. concern. And I'll be interested to hear about that. But when
you look at left-outs out of the shopping center and the peak hour of the shopping center, those two times do
not conflict. You don't have a lot of people exiting shopping centers in the a.m. peak hour. So I don't think
one exacerbates the other from a peak standpoint.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the basis for your reasoning is you apparently have some
agreements already in place that rely on that left turn?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you redact out what you don't want the public to see and send me a
copy of that lease or that agreement so I can verify that? And that will help understand the issue for you, since
you put it on record.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. My client's indicating we can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me go on to my next questions at this time.
November 16, 2017
Page 52 of 69
When you get into your project design elements -- well, first of all, traffic. This is just a point for Mr.
Sawyer that I had already made. I have never seen traffic give us a one-sentence statement for a traffic
commitment in a PUD, so congratulations. I don't know how that happened, but it was shocking. Not bad,
but just surprising.
Under your project design elements, A, in addition to LDC code requirements, the minimum of an
additional 1,500 square feet of building foundation plantings shall be provided.
So the code already requires building foundation plantings. So where is it you're putting this then?
How are you making an additional? What does that mean?
MR. HANCOCK: We've actually expanded the building foundation plantings areas beyond what the
code requirement is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You made them wider?
MR. HANCOCK: Longer, typically. You just extend them. You have to have a certain percentage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: And we have just basically taken those same beds and extended them further than
we needed to meet the minimum requirement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as B, in addition to the LDC code requirements, the minimum
additional 9,500 square feet of special paving area shall be provided. Are there code requirements for special
paving areas? It's either asphalt, concrete, or -- I mean, what were you thinking the code requires?
MR. HANCOCK: It requires one of a series of applications based on the amount of vehicle use area
you have. And in those applications, you can increase plants or beds for building perimeter landscape, you
can increase your -- you know, special paving areas. What we are being asked to do -- Ms. Gundlach asked,
you know, you're saying you're upscale, so I need to see how -- what are you doing beyond code with regard
to landscaping?
So what we did is we took our landscaping plan and our SDP plan that is currently in review, and we
quantified where we were in excesses of the code.
Now, the code requirement, by the time we get done with our interior vehicular use landscape area,
by the time you get done stacking everything together, about 17 percent of that has to be in one of these
treatment areas, and what we're saying is we are in excess of that to these amounts, and we've put them in the
document as a commitment so that you can't -- we're not just saying, yeah, we're doing more. There's a
quantitative measure that can be addressed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in line with the code requirements but just asking more to what the
minimums are.
MR. HANCOCK: That is correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about C? In addition to the LDC code requirements, a minimum of
additional 800 square feet of landscaping shall be provided within the vehicular use areas.
Now, we have islands as requirements and end caps and things like that. So those are requirements.
You're adding more islands is what you're saying, or how are you --
MR. HANCOCK: We're making the islands wider.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
And then D, in addition to the LDC code requirements, the minimum of an additional 19,000 square
feet of green space shall be provided in the vehicular use areas. What is -- what are you referring to as green
space? I mean, green space opens up a whole bunch of definitions.
MR. HANCOCK: It does. That lake that you saw -- this is not a lake as we normally look at them.
Most lakes in commercial developments or residential developments are a part of your stormwater system.
This is actually a water feature. It is not a part of our stormwater system, and it is an amenity, and it qualifies
as open space and, therefore, the lake is a lion's share of that 19,000 square feet that's being cited.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, could you say the feet of green space including the water
feature amenity at the entry? That way everybody knows what to expect. I was just figuring you were going
to leave some open spaces for parking laying around that aren't paved. And I know you probably didn't
intend that, so...
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, and we're happy to make that clarification under D.
November 16, 2017
Page 53 of 69
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And under F, your specialty lighting, I heard your comment about that, and
you're going to -- your picture showed some of it. The code requires lighting already. So the specialty
lighting is in addition or a different type to meet the code requirement; is that what you're saying, or is does --
MR. HANCOCK: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in lieu of, say, a bollard or a wall sconce or something so people can
find where we're they're going, you're going to do this specialty lighting, which is string lighting or something
like that.
MR. HANCOCK: That's correct, and one of the benefits of working with GL commercial on this is
having such a specific idea of what they want to do allows us to include this type of language. Normally, if
you'd asked me to tell you the type of lights I would put in a courtyard on a commercial center, I probably
would object. But in this case, we will be doing outdoor string lighting in at least one of the courtyard areas,
which is above and beyond code requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if Commissioner Nance was here, he probably would ask the
following questions. What do you -- would you have any problem doing it to the dark sky requirements?
MR. HANCOCK: I think we're comfortable with the shielding requirements consistent with dark
sky, but there are some elements of dark sky that are -- I don't want to say just difficult to achieve, but you
don't get as much bang for the buck.
But I hear what you're asking for. We -- you know, I mean, we have to do the cutoff shielding on our
perimeter lights to make sure there's no light spillover to adjacent properties. So are you talking about -- oh,
are you talking about flat panel-type fixtures?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm talking -- well, what -- dark sky has qualifications for all kinds of
lighting, and when we stood -- the Commission at one point had urged staff to start working towards dark sky
guidelines for our code. I honestly don't know how far we've gotten with that. Maybe Ray -- I don't know. It
kind of dropped when Commissioner Nance left. It was his -- something he was real concerned, but I'm not
sure it carried through staff.
MR. BELLOWS: It would have to be part of LDC amendments, and I'm not involved in that one, so
I'd have to check.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Tim, without it having gone very far in the county, there's not
much I can ask you to do, because I don't know how to ask you at this point.
So I had hoped -- I had thought the direction was at the time the commission had accepted that as
something we wanted to work towards, but it doesn't look like it happened.
MR. HANCOCK: And as you know, Commissioner Strain, you and I have -- I've been before you
on a number of projects where we dealt with lighting specifically because there was an adjacent residential
community that had concerns, and I think because of the distance to Saturnia and to the Estates, it didn't hit
the radar screen for me as much on this site.
That being said, you know, we do know we're going to be doing LED lighting, and I think we can
agree to flat panel LED lighting which keeps you from that bulbous light spill situation that you have with the
older type fixtures. And I'd be happy to add something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could at least do that, that would be helpful.
And then the last thing on this part of it is, I don't see anything in here addressing outside amplified
sound. And, you know, the last thing you would want and this panel would want is another Stevie Tomatoes.
Not that we don't like that facility, but its location and its noise in relative to the residential.
Do you have any guidelines to outside amplified sound that you would be willing to address?
Because that is a concern of the -- the residential neighborhoods in the area may be further away, but in those
quieter areas, the sound travels a lot farther. I live in one of those areas, so I know what it's like.
We generally ask entertainment or retail facilities to agree to no outside amplified sound. That is
impractical sometimes when you're looking at cafes with seating on the outside, stuff like that. But the
minimum that I might suggest is that if you're going to have any outside eating areas with tables and chairs,
that the outside amplified sound in that area be focused to the north side or the -- more north side of the
building so that it's facing one of the major roadways and not the south to where the residences are. I don't
know if that is concerning to you or not, but...
November 16, 2017
Page 54 of 69
MR. HANCOCK: It's not concerning, actually, and when we met earlier this week, if you had asked
me, and I think you did, I thought we actually had language in the PUD addressing that. So we have no
problem with --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe it is. I didn't pick up on it. So maybe if you see it while we go on
with other speakers, you can tell me.
MR. HANCOCK: It has never been our intent to have outdoor live music or, you know, amplified
performances.
I just want to make sure we don't run -- and I'm happy to introduce that language. I don't want to run
afoul of if you have an outdoor seating area and you have, you know, music that's through speakers in the
ceiling or in the upper areas that's just, you know, atmospheric.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tim, what happened in this other location, it's in Pebblebrooke,
which is not too far from you guys, same main road, they got a restaurant going in, and something new, kind
of like so many things happening today, the entire outside wall was sliding panels, and inside and facing that
wall were these giant TVs with blaring football games and people cheering and jumping up and down
shouting.
And when you open those walls up, and that community had to live through that, and to this day they
probably do because we couldn't get it corrected. It got built. I'm trying to see that that does not happen here
under any condition.
So that's the objective. And before the meeting's over, if you could just think about some language
that would address that, that's all I'm -- and you guys don't seem to be the kind that are wanting to do that
anyway. I just need to make sure it's memorialized so someone else comes along and doesn't read it
differently.
MR. HANCOCK: And, yes, I'm confident we can arrive at something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm just about finished up with my issues. I had a
question -- oh, an update -- Immokalee Road. You've got -- the transportation impact talks about the
Immokalee Road conditions at LOS standard at E, but it's currently functioning at C. I think you might want
to -- that really is not what is the 2017 AUIR. I think it's dropped down a bit from the C. I'm not sure it's
relevant necessarily since you started this program earlier. I just wanted to mention that in case the question
comes up anywhere else.
Oh, and then your background traffic growth determination, which is on Page 5 of your TIS, you
have some -- it says 2016 trip bank, and the numbers are red. I'm just understanding -- I know the higher
values were supposed to be shown in red, but what's the significance of those trip bank numbers?
MR. HANCOCK: It won't surprise you that I'm pointing at Jeff Perry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I imagine he sat here all day waiting for something.
MR. PERRY: My two-cents worth in, yes.
Good afternoon. My name is Jeff Perry. I'm a transportation planner with Stantec. When we do an
analysis and we forecast for the buildout year, we have to look at the trip bank which, as you heard earlier
today, was the committed trips that are on the books that have not yet been built, and compare that to an
annual growth rate that is also included in the AUIR, and we're required to use the higher of the two.
So we look at the trip bank for this particular section. It was 474, for instance, on the one roadway.
If we applied the growth rate, it was 200 and something. So we're required, in our forecast of background
traffic, to use the higher of the two numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what does that mean in reality? Does that mean that because it's in red,
is that a deficiency?
MR. PERRY: No, no. It's just pointing out that that is the number that we're using as you move
down the table into other tables. Those are the numbers that we've used in our analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I needed to know on that.
Thank you, Jeff. Appreciate it.
Anybody else have any questions? Patrick?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, just a quick question. I think your concern was
great when you were asking about the outside noise. Just for my own personal edification, so as I look at this
November 16, 2017
Page 55 of 69
project, are there only two real outdoor areas, the two we see pictured here that are around that northern
corner where the intersection of Immokalee Road is?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. On their master plan they show four or five outparcels. I would
imagine it's just Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4, and there's Retail A and Retail B, but in between are smaller units.
Any of them could basically be retail to a point where you've got someplace to eat, and --
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: An outdoor area like we see pictured here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Till there's some threshold for shopping centers that they can't pass but
offhand I don't know what that is without looking at the code. They could have multiple buildings, and I just
want to make sure they're not all noisy places that are not thought of well for the neighborhood. Is that what
you were --
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Tim, if you had anything you want to add to it, go right ahead.
MR. HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Once you said transportation, I checked out.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Tim?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Patrick was asking where, potentially, could there be outside seating
for --
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Because as I see it right now, my personal take is that those
two -- that picture, by the way, is beautiful. I mean, I've lived in that corner all my life here in Naples. So it's
going to look a lot better than it does right now and it has. Those two outdoor venues that you have pictured
here on that northern corner around that unbelievable, amazing water feature, all I've got out there is road
noise, so I can't see that bothering anybody. I understand the Chairman's concerns, and I'm glad you're trying
to clarify that.
My question is, are there any other buildings that would allow -- I'm not talking about two tables
outside the front door along the walkway out front as you see in some of these strip malls. Are there any
other buildings that would have the potential to be open like that with an expansive outdoor area?
MR. HANCOCK: There is a planned courtyard kind of in the corner, if you will, and that could have
tables and chairs. And I think we're all trying to get to the same place. And it's not our intent to direct sound
to any residential area. So would something as straightforward as no outside amplified sound shall be
attracted to the east or south property line?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a start. We'll see -- the public's here. If they want to speak and have
any concerns, we'll try to address them.
MR. HANCOCK: Okay. Because we firmly believe that a -- you know, you're right, most of the
what I will call the entertainment portion of this project is really up on that corner.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Which is fine.
MR. HANCOCK: And you're close to two six-lane roadways. But if you're on the other side of
Logan, you don't want to hear it; doesn't matter where you are.
So we would want to ensure that the noise spill doesn't get to the adjacent residential properties.
Fortunately it's across two roadways in that area, so it becomes less of an issue for us.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And I'm seeing heavy landscaping there, which is part of your
plans. Let's just take an example, this little courtyard area here. I see heavy, heavy landscaping back between.
So, hypothetically, back behind that in the distant, distant would be potentially one little piece of Saturnia
Lakes, which is the only residential area in question that could be close to that sound?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes. From this point to the nearest home in Saturnia Lakes is over 600 feet.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Wow. Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: You know, so we're comfortable with no outside amplified, you know, music that
is directed, you know, to the south or east property line. And we hope that will accomplish it, because if you
imagine a television playing from one end of a football field to the other, which is only 300 feet, and we're
twice, you know, if you don't amplify that, if it's just a television, that should be more than sufficient distance
to address the issue.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
November 16, 2017
Page 56 of 69
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- that may be at least a modest step backward from the commitment
that I believe was made at the NIM. I'm looking at Page 15 of the staff report, the bullet points of the various
commitments that were made. And the second-to-last one says, bars and land uses that generate loud music
will be restricted. So it wasn't limited to certain quadrants of the property.
MR. HANCOCK: We did restrict them by eliminating bars. You can't have a bar.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bars and land uses. So land uses involving entertainment that don't
necessarily involve serving of alcohol.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, I think the thought of restriction is to deal with the issue of sound, and that's
why I'm really surprised. I actually thought we had it in the PUD at some point, but we can craft that
language as a further limitation, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I think maybe we said this already, but I would see that in a
prohibited use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where we put them on other ones. But whatever language you come
up with, before the meeting's over, we need to digest it and get it added there.
MR. HANCOCK: At this point I'd like to propose for your consideration that we add that no outside
amplified sound shall be directed to the east or south property line.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mean, that's more restrictive than what was conceded, I guess, at the
NIM.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I mean, bar and land uses that generate loud music will be restricted,
and they've not included bars in here, or I can't see any other land use in there that would be problematic
except for the possibility of spillover from a restaurant because of outside music and entertainment. You're
limiting that further, so it's getting there.
MR. HANCOCK: And one of the things to also consider the actual design of the center itself, in
essence, operates somewhat like a funnel channeling the sound back towards the corner or the intersection,
unlike the example you cite where you have the end cap of a restaurant where they opened up a wall that's
right across the street not just 150 feet from homes. So I do think the design takes that into consideration as
well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the project across the street from you is Old Cypress, right? So the
more sound you direct to Diane's neighborhood, the better.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it can't be any worse than the high school.
MR. HANCOCK: Ms. Ebert gets to request two songs a night.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She'll do that. Be careful.
Okay. Anybody else at this time? Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Tim, the water feature, you said it's not part of the drainage
network?
MR. HANCOCK: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's not connected to any root drain or culvert or anything?
Is it lined? How does it fill up?
MR. HANCOCK: Okay. Bill, do you want to -- Bill Fenno (phonetic) with GL is handling the
engineering for the project. I'll let him get me out of that one.
MR. FENNO: Bill Fenno with GL Homes. Yes, we do have a drainage inlet that outfalls into that
lake to maintain elevation. It is lined.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So it will be part of your calculation?
MR. FENNO: It is a part of the calculation. It is not used for water quality.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Got it. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant?
MR. STONE: Mr. Chair, before we get much further, I'd like to discuss a couple of issues with the
language, minor things, if it that's okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. What language?
MR. STONE: Well, going back to the traffic commitment, we were discussing tying that to the time
of SDP. I came up with the language with the help of Ms. Ashton.
November 16, 2017
Page 57 of 69
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. STONE: I can read that into the record for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly.
MR. STONE: So the commitment right now says the project shall not exceed a maximum of 449 net
new p.m. peak hour two-way trips, and I propose to add the following language: As based on the use codes
in the ITE manual, which is Institute of Transportation Engineers, trip generation rates in effect at the time of
application for SDP approval or subdivision plat approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you guys?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE: And a couple of minor cleanup issues that I noticed as I was going through this again.
In Deviation 3, it states that the current requirements, we require trees to be spaced no more than 30 feet on
center.
In the landscape buffer abutting the right-of-way or primary access road internal to a development to
exceed the minimum spacing, I think that should be "maximum" spacing. I don't think there's any harm
leaving it the way it is, but I feel it's more accurate to state maximum.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes. Because we state it's no more than 30 feet, that becomes a maximum
spacing. So I understand where you're coming from. It would be consistent that they can be no more than 30
feet apart. So we're going to exceed that maximum spacing criteria by allowing windows up to 60 feet and
clustering. Are we on the same page?
MR. STONE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That clears it up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. STONE: And one more thing. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time to bring this up, but
under prohibited uses -- and I believe Corby will be presenting some proposed changes to the GMP
amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they're in the packet. We've already read them. And if we had any
questions on it, we'd be asking. But we'll certainly ask for a staff report if he wants to enhance it any.
MR. STONE: Okay. In the GMP amendment under prohibited uses, it states any use which is not
identified above, and in the LDC -- in the PUD it limits it to any use or structure in the C3 district. I think we
should just mimic what's in the GMP amendment and say any use which is not identified above.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's actually simpler, yeah. Why don't we --
MR. BELLOWS: I think that would make it more consistent with the GMP language and avoid
confusion in the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So any use not -- yeah, any conditional use or accessory use not identified
above is what it says.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes. That language change is fine as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Scott?
MR. STONE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane, did you have some?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have anything?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
And we'll go to the first staff report. Let's do Nancy, and then we'll ask Corby if he wants to add
anything to his staff report.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. I was going to recommend that Corby speak first. It's typically --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't have any questions from his document, so I didn't -- that's fine.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Well, he had something he wanted to share with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's good.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: He sat here all day for that. Could they bring it up a little bit.
November 16, 2017
Page 58 of 69
MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Afternoon.
MR. SCHMIDT: There are changes that are late forthcoming that did not make it into your packets.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Corby, is it possible for you to sharpen this for my old eyes?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Bring it closer.
MR. SCHMIDT: I'll wait for a moment till that's ready.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Super.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Much better.
MR. SCHMIDT: All right. These are insubstantive changes, but they came after packets were
prepared, and because they are minor in nature, we're introducing them now.
Again, these are changes being made to the recommendation you see in your staff report, and that
item where you see it highlighted there in B.12 is simply an addition of the subdistrict name to the list of
locations where commercial uses are allowed, and the second item, it begins on the same page, or at least here
in the exhibit it does. In the original version of the Exhibit A, the uses were bullet pointed. And in the
formatting of the FLUE, generally we don't use bullet points. And although there's no words being changed
here at all, we're using small letters to list those uses. These changes still coincide with what the PUD
changes you've discussed earlier in the meeting are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of GMP?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Corby.
MR. SCHMIDT: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal
planner with the Zoning Department.
And staff is recommending approval today, and we are in agreement with all the proposed CCPC
changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, the longer you're here, the better you get at these presentations.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions of staff on the PUD section of it?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, we'll move to the public speakers. And we'll start out
speakers registered requested -- you know, have registered to speak. And, Ray, if you'll announce the first
speaker. Please come up to the mike, identify yourself, and we'll be glad to hear from you.
MR. BELLOWS: Joe Brockman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Speakers are limited to five minutes. We're pretty flexible with that, but I
ask that you just be concise and not redundant.
MR. BROCKMAN: Yes. My name is Joe Brockman. I am a resident of Saturnia Lakes, 2323
Butterfly Palm. I'm also a director with the homeowners association.
And I had a list of items, several of those -- well, the list of items that have been relayed through Mr.
Anderson and some that had been relayed to you. A few of them I will slightly skip because some of that has
been addressed.
But I will say the list that I did have or I'm working from, it had been presented to all the other board
members, and it was presented Tuesday night at our regular monthly board of directors meetings where we
have -- it's an open meeting. We had about 100 or so residents there.
So, basically, what I'm talking about comes from that list. There might be a few other comments,
more of maybe just being a concerned resident.
And the one item -- I do know that you do have a letter from the homeowner owners association, and
that was probably dated, what, 2015, '16?
MR. RATTERREE: Sixteen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't have discourse across with the people in the audience.
November 16, 2017
Page 59 of 69
MR. BROCKMAN: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't get on record that way, and it becomes problematic.
MR. BROCKMAN: I'm sorry.
I just want to be clear on that. I'm not up here to oppose the project. I'm up here to -- hopefully to try
to improve the project. And the letter that they do have -- I know they have a letter signed by the
homeowners association. But no one that signed it is on the board of directors anymore. The president
doesn't even live there anymore.
I'd like to ask you to think a little bigger picture. We've got a 50-acre wooded area on that corner of
Logan and Immokalee. So whatever happens here, it's going to affect a parcel immediately to the south and
immediately to the west.
Now, I don't know what's going to happen to those parcels. They're going to get developed just like
the Cleary that we talked about earlier, but what you do here, it might preclude -- maybe there could be
townhomes that go in there, maybe apartments, but whatever we do here is certainly going to impact what
goes in there.
And, really, it comes down to two concerns: Noise, which some of that has been addressed; and the
other is congestion, primarily traffic congestion.
What we were asking for, consideration for on Logan heading north into the development, a right-in
and a right-out. My only belief -- and part of it is we have a hard enough time getting out of our Logan exit
from Saturnia as it is. And with 100,000 square foot of development there, there is going to be quite a bit
more traffic, there's no doubt about it.
And turning left heading south out of there, they're going to have a hard time. You're going to be
dealing with cars making right turn on red off of Immokalee. So it will be a difficult thing to do. I believe it
will be in the best interest to all if it was right-in, right-out.
And as far as the -- a couple of quick things here. One is -- I'm not the expert in this area, but I really
didn't understand, you know, this no, excuse me, off-site preserve. And I understand here where you have
one acre of preserve and then another acre off-site preserve.
And for me, I -- just as an unsolicited comment, I really don't -- it just seems to me a way to get
around whatever you're prescribing as a preserve by having off-site preserves.
We were also in favor of no -- as was talked before, like, no outside video, you know, no outside
amplified music, just because it opens the door to a lot of other -- a lot of other noise problems.
The other thing, there's no -- there's no restriction at all of hours of operation. So it's pretty much
24/7. A semi can come in at any time of the day, and I think that's something that should be addressed with,
you know, some kind of -- some kind of restriction.
That whole area still -- it does have -- outside of this development, it basically is a residential area,
and there is opportunity for those other lots to be developed in that same -- along the same line of residential
or multifamily, and so I would ask that that be considered in whatever you decide on this project.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question or comment. Mr. Brockman, is it?
MR. BROCKMAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir, there's no better evidence in my judgment than empirical evidence
of what we actually see on these roads as far as congestion is concerned, but one of the things that we have in
front of us came yesterday; the Board of County Commissioners approved the 2017 AUIR. And I see that
this stretch of Logan is actually five to 10 percent decrease from 2016. Has that not been your experience in
traffic?
MR. BROCKMAN: Well, I haven't been counting cars.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: It doesn't feel like it's any better to you?
MR. BROCKMAN: No. We have -- and maybe not all the time. But we do have traffic now that
gets backed up through the gate trying to get out. But there also, within the community, we're -- it's not a
plan. It just has been considered to actually expand this Logan gate because of difficulties getting out and in
off of Immokalee. And some of it, with some of your older citizens, even the younger citizens, it's difficult
November 16, 2017
Page 60 of 69
with the amount of traffic that we have.
But I haven't noticed any particular decrease, but I can tell you again, I have no doubt the
traffic -- the amount of traffic on Logan will be much heavier -- if they're going to have a successful
development, there are going to be a lot more cars. I mean, I have no idea -- how many parking spots do we
have there? Do you have any idea?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, no, I don't. Thank you for your answer.
MR. BROCKMAN: Thank you. Anything else?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not yet. I'm going to be talking to the applicant before it's over.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Danielle Otto. Oh, I see she has a note. She had to leave, but she is in fully (sic)
support of both the Growth Management Plan amendment and the rezone.
Gordon Wolfe.
MR. WOLFE: Thank you for letting me speak today. I'm a resident at Riverstone, and I've been a
resident for two years now, and I just am supportive of having a nice convenient shopping center where we
could access some groceries or whatnot relatively closer than currently is located towards us or for us.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you had a shopping center here, would you be using that shopping center
instead of driving further west on Immokalee Road looking for another shopping center?
MR. WOLFE: Yes, sir. We have probably -- I've got an equidistance between Publix on 951 and at
the Strand. And, you know, just to go out and pick up something quickly, it takes, you know -- we're 12
minutes just to get to the light on Logan and Immokalee. So it would be much more convenient to be 12
minutes as opposed to, you know, probably 30 minutes round trip.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Wolfe?
MR. WOLFE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: One quick question for you.
MR. WOLFE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So I'm hearing you correctly. So you think -- and I think I agree,
but I want to make sure and clarify. Having this shopping center there would actually probably alleviate a lot
of traffic that I see at Immokalee right now, that intersection before I-75 where the Super Target is down by
the Strand. That's a heavy -- I drive that a lot. That's a heavy site.
MR. WOLFE: Yeah. We have terrible traffic, especially in the morning, making a right out of a -- a
right off of Logan onto Immokalee. Terrible traffic getting onto I-75. And I'm imagining some of that traffic
probably has to do with people trying to get stuff or whatnot. So I think some of that traffic would be going
the other way, to be honest with you.
Ladies who are picking up groceries or whatnot would be making that left and going into that
shopping center and alleviating that backup on Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Cool. Thank you, sir.
MR. WOLFE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: Chris Lecca.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't look like he's here, or she.
MR. BELLOWS: Danielle Sneed.
MS. SNEED: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Danielle Sneed. I work, I live, 5675
Golden Oaks Lane. I've lived there about two years.
And I first want to express my appreciation for the detailed investigation you give to all of the things
that come across your board. It is commendable.
I am looking forward to this shopping center. I live really close to the Super Target and some of the
other fast casual dining areas. I'm looking forward to having something that has more of a sitdown venue
where you can be served food or have some boutique shopping.
November 16, 2017
Page 61 of 69
If we are looking for that right now, we have to go clear west onto 41. And as we have all talked
about today, the traffic there is ridiculous. So this would alleviate me having to travel in that direction and
come out in an opposite direction and be very close to home.
I'm at the east side or east end of Oaks, Golden Oaks. I'm about 400 feet from Logan. I do see the
traffic. It doesn't bother me. And I think this will help to -- like expressed, to alleviate the traffic that's
happening on Immokalee that's going to the Super Walmart or going to the Target because those -- or to the
Publix. Those are our options right now.
So we can be able to go, you know, eastbound and have a boutique grocery store to get something
besides those big box stores. So I'm in support of the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ironically, though, for you to get to this store, you've got to go all the way
west, then north, and all the way back east again along Immokalee, don't you?
MS. SNEED: That's true. Unless we want to grab our bicycles.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I thought so. All of us in the Estates are stuck with those kind of
parameters. I was just thinking, if you're in Golden Oaks, you've definitely got a little bit more of a travel,
so -- but thank you for your input. I appreciate it.
MR. BELLOWS: Dianne Bone.
MS. BONE: Good afternoon. My name is Dianne Bone. I live at 4160 Crescent Court in Naples,
and I'm here to speak in favor of the Landings at Logan.
So I live in Stone Creek, which is a community located on the north end of Logan Boulevard. And I
would be thrilled to see this development go through for some of the various reasons that Danielle just spoke
of. It would be very convenient. Right now we have Publix either at both ends. You either go to 75, or we
go far, you know, to the east.
So I have been at a Sprouts before, and I do like to shop there. I do find this -- the overall
development, the design quality, I find it to be really attractive. I think it's going to fit well on the corner and
be very appealing. I think that -- you know, in speaking with a lot of my neighbors about this, they, too, are
pretty excited to see the Landings at the Logan -- the Landings at Logan become a reality.
You know, it's just the added convenience of things. Like Gordon spoke earlier of how far it is to go,
or Danielle. It's really just the added convenience. It's nice to go out to dinner with your family and your
friends, you know, at new restaurants or, you know, enjoy an afternoon of shopping.
And, you know, I think overall it may increase our home values as well. I mean, because, you know,
the saying is location, location, location. So for that reason, I think I'd really like to see it move forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MS. BONE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: Darren Sherwood?
MR. SHERWOOD: Good afternoon. I'm Darren Sherwood. I live in Saturnia Lakes, 2016 Painted
Palm Drive.
Some of the folks have touched on what I wanted to. I'm less concerned about the traffic it will bring
to the area than the traffic that will no longer be on the roads, mostly my car.
If I have, you know, an eight-tenths of a mile to groceries, restaurants, entertainment, my car's no
longer on the road. I'm 30 minutes round trip to Mercato, 20 minutes round trip to any grocery store, almost
an hour to downtown. I don't think I'm exaggerating to say I am many, many hours less in my car on a
monthly basis with this community here. That holds true of all 570 residents at Saturnia Lakes.
And even if I'm particularly lazy one day and want to get in my car to drive to this new community,
it's still 30 minutes I'm not on the road going to and from Mercato or someplace else.
In addition, it will be a nice change, you know, for having something really close. With all due
respect to Zookies, you know, having something a little nicer, you know, that I can go to.
In addition to that, you know, I come from a place where you wait 90 minutes to cross a bridge. So
the fact that it might be a little bit more difficult to make a left turn onto Logan, I think, in perspective, with
what we're gaining, I'm not all too concerned.
Lastly, it's all about, you know, who's building the community, okay. I am in real estate. I have
November 16, 2017
Page 62 of 69
bought -- I live in a GL home, and I've sold new and resale GL homes, enumerable, many, many of them.
And most other developers I deal with, the instant they're able to get out of an obligation, they're out of an
obligation. Sorry, not our problem.
This is a personal experience with GL Homes on many, many occasions, honoring warranties that
have long since expired when I'm reselling a home for someone, hey, let's give them a call, see what they
have to say; many, many months maybe, even more than a year sometimes, they're still honoring warranties
on expensive items, okay.
These are the people who are going to build and manage the community by my house. I feel pretty
comfortable.
I've been in my house for 12 years. Forgetting the build quality, and it came through the storm and all
that stuff. I needed a piece of baseboard. So I called somebody at GL Homes noticing that they still use the
same baseboard. Where can I get it? Who's your sub? Let me buy a couple of pieces of baseboard. The next
day it's delivered to my house. No charge, Mr. Sherwood; 12 years after I bought the house as a resale.
So, you know, you can't know everything up front, but knowing what I know now, I'm very
comfortable with everything that's being proposed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A question.
MR. SHERWOOD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That turnout onto Logan, what percentage of the people turn
left and what percentage turn right?
MR. SHERWOOD: Virtually none turn right. Not virtually none. The vast majority turn left,
because you're going into the western part of town. And unless you have something specifically you need to
get to Immokalee, you're avoiding Immokalee like you avoid prison and Pine Ridge Road. Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You know, I asked because I would think you'd make a right
and then you'd go to the light and you could turn left. I see your point.
MR. SHERWOOD: Again, when I go to the post office, I go left, go to Vanderbilt, go down to
Goodlette, and then go to the post office, and I promise you I'm there five minutes earlier than the person who
took the shorter route to Immokalee Road. So while some are doing that, it's mostly -- because they
specifically have the purpose of needing to be on Immokalee Road. Everybody else, you know -- and there
are certain times of day it's a little bit of a bear, but I tell you what, I'll take an extra two or three rights and
lefts to have a restaurant that I can walk to.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you.
MR. SHERWOOD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Stan? Mr. Chairman, clarification. So I think -- I'm sure you
know, but I think Saturnia has a main entrance, like this project will have, that will turn right on Immokalee.
So if you're going to go out the side entrance of Saturnia on Logan, most likely you're going to want to go
left; otherwise, you go out the main entrance, go right, and I think -- I'm guessing the same thing's going to
hold true for the new project, which is why it's important for them, it sounds like, because I can go out right
onto Immokalee, but if I'm going to go out the other side of the project, if I'm going to go to Logan, I think
the need would be to go left for both project and the community. I'm just, you know, speculating.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: Jay Campbell.
MR. CAMPBELL: Good afternoon. Thank you for the time. My name is Jay Campbell. I'm a
homeowner in Oaks Estates. I've been there over 13 years. Seen a lot changes in the area. But one thing that
was always consistent for me is that to come out of my community and always head to the west, out of my
community and head to the west.
Originally it was Fifth Avenue, then it became Mercato, which was a little easier. And while there's
developments that are happening on the commercial level to the east of me, I don't -- I haven't seen anything
of this level of quality and, you know, the amount of time that they've put into it, but more so than anything
else, it's complementing, I feel, what's existing today, and what I mean by that is, yeah, I can go to three
different Publixes, but I don't have something like a Sprouts or a Wholefoods or something like that that's
November 16, 2017
Page 63 of 69
close by to me.
The restaurants that might be in there, other services that are in there, I just don't have easily
accessible today. Again, I'm always going out and going, going out and going. Having something close by
to my neighborhood, Oaks Estates, would be a benefit to me. I think it's, again, complementary but also,
aesthetically, it's going to be appealing. Someone mentioned earlier about our property values. I mean, you
see the renderings. Something like that is certainly not going to be a detriment to what my neighborhood is.
And if not pedestrian, certainly something that myself, adults, or even kids could ride bikes to, that's
appealing.
So I just wanted to provide my support for the project. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker, John Nicola.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he's left.
MR. BELLOWS: He's left, but he did leave a note that he's in support of the project and the reduced
sign height to 15 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any members of the public here who have not spoken that
would like to speak?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim or Bruce, whoever, you have an opportunity for summary or
rebuttal, whatever you'd prefer.
Oh, before we go into that, I do want to ask you -- well, first of all, Terri, we'll probably take a break
for you right now, and then we can finish, because we've got a couple old business items to finish up.
So let's take a break for 10 minutes, come back at 2:31, and we'll wrap up real quick after that.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. If you'll please take your seats. We're back from the
break. And we left off with the final public speaker and going to the applicant for any summary or rebuttal
that they may want to use.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I will save you from any summary
or wrap-up and just say, we hear and understand the concerns about traffic. And when you looked at our TIS,
the number of actual left-turn movements onto Logan is very, very low.
And so while we recognize the concern, I think the other testimony that you heard that is probably as
much or more important is that this project has the great potential to take trips off the road that are on it today.
And I've always said that just because they build a new grocery store doesn't mean I buy more milk.
I'm going to buy the same amount of milk, but I just may get to drive a little less distance to get there. And I
think this project is typical of that approach. So, Mr. Dearborn, I appreciate that perspective as well.
We did have discussion in the break about noise from delivery vehicles, and our current leases don't
really give us the ability to restrict the hours of delivery vehicles, but recognizing that that can be
problematic, GL commercial has agreed to work very closely with all future leaseholders to emphasize the
desire for them not to have delivery vehicles backing, you know, at all hours of the morning. Sometimes
these delivery vehicles will get there before the store hours open, and they sit and wait for store hours.
So while we do have a truck well with a sound wall on the south side already, you know, they've
agreed to work with the tenants as best they can, but, unfortunately, at this time I can't limit the delivery hours
because it would not be consistent with the leases that are in place right now.
But with that, I'm happy to address any questions you may have. We are comfortable with the noise
language of no outside amplified sound shall be directed to the east or south property line, and open to any
comments and discussion you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other final comments on this?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that if you limit -- and I
understand the noise of the beep, beep for the delivery trucks, but if you limit them to hours --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do that again. I want to see how she types that out.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I get a tape of that?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I won't do it again now. You're all making fun of me.
November 16, 2017
Page 64 of 69
But the point is that if we limit those hours -- and I understand some of the residents' concern or the
residents' concern about that, all you're going to do is add in more traffic. I'd rather have those big trucks with
deliveries for food coming in at five a.m., even if they've got to sit there if the store opens at seven, than have
them on the road blocking traffic and making a left-hand turn at 9 a.m. when I'm trying to get my son to
school, or 8 a.m. or whatever.
So I actually think -- we didn't say anything. You-all brought that up. But let me come off hours,
man, to get those delivery trucks and keep them off the road and less traffic. Just my two cents worth.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, with that, we'll close the public hearing, and we'll move first
to discussion.
There's a couple of things -- we've talked about a lot of issues to change in the document. And I think
all of us are on board with that and, Tim, you have reiterated those to us. So those changes need to be made.
You have agreed to reduce the sign height to 15 feet. It's not -- you didn't even ask to have it -- it
looks like you did that before this version got to us. I didn't see where the sign limit was increased, so we
know that's been done. And that was Mr. Nicola's document.
And then you're going to add all the language we discussed in the outdoor sound language. So other
than that, I don't see anything else that is beyond what we already know you're going to change.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Stone had some suggested language. We wrote it as
quickly as we could on the trips for ITE, but we'll be getting that from him for inclusion, and the 15-foot sign
limitation was on Logan Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. With that, everything you said we're in agreement with, and greatly
appreciate your input and support.
MR. STONE: Mr. Chair, for clarification, where is that 15-foot sign limitation in the PUD?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to have the -- I don't know if you add it. Does it need to
be -- I don't remember exactly if it's in a section of the PUD or you've got to add it for the limitation, but it's
going to be in there now is what's going to happen. So, yeah, okay.
MR. HANCOCK: Proposed to add it as Item H under 4, developments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I didn't remember. It's not in there yet.
Okay. Now, as far as any further discussion, does this panel have any before we vote for a motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first motion we need to make is for the GMPA subject to staff's
clarification of language that Corby came up and showed us on the overhead, and the GMPA is
PL20160001100. Does anybody have a motion?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that motion and second subject to the staff corrections shown on record?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
November 16, 2017
Page 65 of 69
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
The next one is the PUD. It's PL20160001089. Anybody -- and that -- now, we have had a lengthy
discussion over different changes to the document. The motion needs to include those, I would assume, and
other things you just read into the record.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both the motion to approve and second were to include those items I just --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Absolutely, Mark.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
And before we finish, Mr. Ratterree wanted a moment to talk to us. Actually to talk in general.
Doesn't have to be to us.
MR. RATTERREE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. For the record -- but guess it doesn't need to be for
the record, but I'm going to say my name anyway. Kevin Ratterree with GL Homes.
I will not be given this opportunity probably in front of the County Commission meeting when these
two items come up, so I wanted to take just a minute of your time to actually thank Bruce Anderson for the
service that he has given to our company over the years. He has been one of the most outstanding attorneys
that I have ever had the pleasure to work with, and I've dealt with a lot over the years.
His patience, his temperament, his knowledge of this system has been invaluable to us, and I just
wanted to take a little moment and say thank you publicly to Bruce for all of his dedicated service to us and to
the residents of Collier County, and I wish him many, many, many happy years in retirement.
Thank you, Bruce.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That was nicely said. You do know he applied for a job on this
panel.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That would be interesting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just kidding. He's coming back in a vengeance.
Okay. That takes us to the end of our regular agenda for today. We're into new business, and there is
no new business, so we'll go to old business, No. 11, and there's a couple status reports that Ned wanted to
request to discuss with staff or whoever.
Go ahead, Ned.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
Two items. The first one has to do with the native vegetation preservation. I think back in July
we -- I believe we acted unanimously and thought we were approving a change to the LDC that would have
prohibited off-site preservation, but then it turned out, and we were educated by staff, that really we need to
deal with that, if we want to deal with it at all, in the GMP.
So the reason that I wanted to add this to old business is to be sure that we don't lose this piece. I'm
not expecting a detailed status report but just to let staff know that I think we do want this to come back at
November 16, 2017
Page 66 of 69
some future time, not too distant future, so that we can test our continued interest in prohibiting off-site or,
perhaps, prohibiting land donations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I recall a conversation, but then as the months pursued and we
rounded out how we handled the Conservation Collier issue with the preservation language, we realized that
it might be practical to allow half an acre, which was 27,000 some odd square feet, as an ability to go off site
but prohibiting anything above that, to lock it into that and no more. I'm not sure changing the GMP is
necessary as a result of that type of change. So maybe you can enlighten us, Mike. Your memory's probably
a lot better than mine.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director.
Thank you, Mark. That's exactly what I was going to say. We have an executive summary going to
the Board of County Commissioners on December 12th asking them to direct us to advertise to bring the
proposed preservation standard changes to the Board on the 23rd of January, and within those we do allow
for a half acre of off-site preservation to be provided for and also some exceptions related to essential
services.
So with that, staff was unaware of what the Planning Commission's intentions were related to
anything related to a GMP amendment, and that's what I was really wanting to get clarification on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we were done with any followup need unless, Ned, you had --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, no. I think we -- I was fine with the de minimus concept of half
an acre, but I have all along been opposed to the land donation option, and I thought that others felt the same
way.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I think what we did was forward it to the Board with a
recommendation that we do away with that but that we couldn't do away with it ourselves. I thought that's
how it ended up.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That may be.
MR. BOSI: The third aspect of the Planning Commission recommendation is the land donation
alternative has been removed making a monetary payment the only method for satisfying off-site preservation
donation requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't that -- that was found that's consistent with the GMP?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's how I thought we liked it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I believe the GMP permits land donation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I think Mr. Bosi is the interpreter of the GMP. So, Mike, you'll
need to tell us what that means in regards to the GMP. And if you guys are satisfied we're consistent with the
GMP and we've got a de minimis allowance within the language that's now going forward for approval, we
might be done is all I'm suggesting, and --
MR. BOSI: And I think one of -- the confusion may have been how the language was written within
the GMP, that it requires the option for a land donation.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: And staff's -- from discussion, staff's interpretation was that it does not require -- it
allows for but does not require that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm going to look to the County Attorney and say, what is your
interpretation? If it calls for the provision of that option, doesn't that option have to be provided for?
MR. STONE: Well, Mike, as the interpreter of the GMP and the code, is the ultimate interpreter of
that, so we defer to his opinion on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless you appeal it. Well, you can appeal his decision, but then it goes to
me.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. STONE: Well, there hasn't been an official interpretation yet. If you'd like to apply for one --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm just saying, I'm not sure we're gaining anywhere. We're just going
to spend a lot of time doing something that's already been accomplished.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: We don't want to waste time. So, in other words, it's Mike's
November 16, 2017
Page 67 of 69
interpretation that the land donation option is off the table, it's not permitted?
MR. BOSI: With the adoption of this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, if the Board adopts what we presented to them.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
The second one has to do with NIMs, and I realize that there was some disagreement up here on that
resolution at the October 19th meeting.
I thought a compromise of sorts was struck along the lines of -- the provision of a written transcript
of the NIM would remain an option for the developer but would not be required, but in exchange, staff was
requested to poll the Planning Commission and identify those who wanted to receive a wave file or an MP4
or something so that they could listen to the proceedings that take place at the NIM, and then Judy Puig
followed up with an email, and I said, yes, I wanted to see those, and I don't believe that was followed
through with.
Also, the Chairman said in -- and I take this from the minutes of the October 19 meeting. Mr.
Chairman, you saw three problems. Number one is the quality. We need to have some language that insists
on better quality material, better quality audio devices used for those NIMs. That would help solve the
problem tremendously.
Number two, we need to insist the representatives identify themselves when they speak at the NIM,
and then the county representative, whoever that is, the planner, take some kind of lead in making sure people
don't talk over one another and try to organize it a little bit if the facilitators of the applicant do not.
So I was wanting a status report on that.
MR. BOSI: And, thank you.
Mr. Bellows, with coordination of one of our specific trainers for our principal planners, Kay
Deselem, put together -- and this I was going to share with the Chairman for his guidance in terms of
furthering it on to you. I can just share it with the Planning Commission right now. It can be expanded upon.
But here's the reminders we put to staff:
Staff to take notes on the commitments that are made. Be as proactive as necessary to keep the
meeting on track and make sure the questions are repeated and speakers to identify themselves, that only one
person speaks at a time. If background chatter becomes an issue, to speak up. These are reminders to our
staff before -- you know, in their preparation for the neighborhood information meeting.
And then for our staff members to provide to the agent, you know, before the meeting takes place, in
their preparation, provide the required -- that they have to provide the required affidavit and its attachments
prior to the meeting in compliance with the LDC if they haven't done so; post signs at the site outside on
doors and in the buildings to direct attendees to the exact meeting location; and ensure that there is excellent
quality sound amplification equipment available and working for this meeting. And if there's permanent
equipment, please bring a tested, working portable microphone that will provide a clear recording; and
introduce yourself and your team members; remind the audience that the meeting is being recorded in
compliance with county regulations.
Ask that only one person speak at a time to ensure a quality recording is made, and each speaker to
identify himself or herself.
Also the prepared documents for handouts at the NIMs, that these documents could include approved
and proposed site plans as well as approved and proposed PUD documents that show the differences in uses
that would be allowed in the existing and proposed rezoning district.
Note that these documents, if provided, will become part of the record and will be provided to the
Planning Commission as well as the Hearing Examiner.
And you need to provide a written synopsis of the meeting as well as providing the audio/videotape.
Note that written synopsis must include a list of all questions and answers from the NIM and any
commitments made by the applicant.
Those are the guidelines to ensure -- but what I'm also asking my planners to do is remind the agents,
if they have not watched any of the Planning Commission's discussion on the neighborhood information
meeting and the importance that are placed upon the neighborhood information meetings and the summaries
that are provided for, that they have to reiterate that to the agents, because we need to stress to the agents that
November 16, 2017
Page 68 of 69
it has become an issue that the Planning Commission is concerned with; that they need to do everything that's
possible to provide that clear, concise transcript or summary of what was discussed, the speakers who made
comments, and the commitments that were made.
So we're really trying to convey your -- your impression upon the agents that this will become an
issue if they do not pay attention and attention isn't made to the audio equipment, the proceedings, and then,
ultimately, the commitments that are made, because the issues that are addressed at the neighborhood
information meeting should be commitments that are conveyed to in the PUD document, if there are any that
are made.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think that's excellent.
Mike, did you -- maybe I missed hearing you say this -- maybe you said it and I missed it. In the
case -- each time a developer representative speaks, he or she is going to identify himself or herself?
MR. BOSI: We had mentioned that they identify themselves with each time that they --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: They speak.
MR. BOSI: With a transition -- with the transition of speakers, that the individual who represents the
developer needs to be able to let the audio -- the person listening to the audio know that we're transiting back
an individual, not from the public back to someone from -- to the agent.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So what happened this morning with Wayne Arnold being associated
with statements he said he didn't make, that would not happen if the speaker, the real speaker, would have
identified himself or herself before speaking.
MR. BOSI: And that's a further clarification I think we probably can make. Each time there's a
transition in speaker, the speaker who's taking over, to identify themselves, even if it's repetitive.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. BOSI: And we're reminded that it's not for the individuals at the meeting, because after a while
they'll know who they are, and it may seem odd, but we're doing that for the individual who's listening to the
audiotape who doesn't have the benefit of the video, which Stan wants.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, can they do video if they want?
MR. BOSI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's provided for in the administrative procedure.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's wonderful what you're doing. And I have been to some of these
meetings and, you're right, it's the equipment, which is usually -- each agent has to give their name here at the
Planning Commission. If they would have to do that at the NIM meeting, that should take care of everything.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But every time they talk, they'll forget. We don't say, hey,
this is Stan Chrzanowski. She knows who we are. But I imagine the audio of this meeting, without a video,
you'd have a hard time after a while.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're right.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's true.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mike.
Anybody else have anything else under old business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there any public comment? I can see the room is just
full of people waiting to do so.
And is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick, seconded by Diane.
All in those favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
November 16, 2017
Page 69 of 69
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Mike.
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair
at 2:50 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
_____________________________________
MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY
TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
AGENDA ITEM 9-A
Coftr County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2017
SUBJECT: CU-PL20160001875, 220 BASIK DR
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner: Heritage Property Holdings, LLC
3725 31St Ave SW
Naples, FL 34117
REQUESTED ACTION:
Agent: Blair A. Foley, PE
BAF, PE, LLC
120 Edgemere Way S
Naples, FL 34105
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for the
establishment of a conditional use to allow enclosed mini -self storage warehousing within a
General Commercial (C-4) Zoning District within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay -Receiving
Lands pursuant to Section 2.03.03.D.1.c.24 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject parcel is located on the northeast corner of Basik Drive and US 41 East; in Section 18,
Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following
page)
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner seeks a Conditional Use that will allow an existing building to be converted from a
flea market into a self -storage facility. This conversion encompasses only interior renovations and
will provide 400 self -storage units. The conceptual site plan (see page 3) provides ingress/egress
from Tamiami Trail East, buffering, water management, and native vegetation preserves.
CU-PL20160001875, 220 BASIK DR
Page 1 of 9
Revised Date: December 5, 2017
7
Location Map
1
}
1 _
• TTRVC
Ca
0
i
CJ y
1
SITE 1
LOCATION
vuo 6
Petition Number: PL20160001875
Zoning Map
Gr
4/
Rq/
f `00
CATCH BASIN (TYP) iO�y 111Z
Of
1 _
COVEDRE Sx T+
ENTRY `
CATCH BASIN CONC RAMP
/ 9"x 18" OPENINGm
(1 -FIRE HYDRANT
OTHER LGNUS OF
HERITACE Poi.I TY HcUaINGS h l (jA]EtilJ \,
uc R °�'s•
I� I
CATCH BASIN (TYP) / u
LANDSCAPE BUFFER MATRIX 11�f / PAVERS
REQUIRED PROVIDED C
USdI15' TYPED 15' TYPED
DASIKDR 10' TYPE D IO' TYPE D I &
EAST 10' TYPE A IO' TYPE A ' COVERED
NORMA 15' TYPE B 15' TYPE 8 I r DRIVE IN ENTRY BAY PAVERS ;'�
>GV—SIOKAGL PARKING
I: 20.000 xf+
I Per 50 Veh/Haat
+ 1 Per 300 sf Oericc
86.446 of Tmal
Storage:
85.446 / 20.000 = 4.3
Office:
1.000 a' / 300 r 3.3
TOTAL REOJIRED = 08
TOTAL PROVIDED
CATCH BASIN
FIRE HYDRANT
CONC W,
(TYP)
I STORY WOW FRAME SOMING
FLOOR ELEV I; . N.4 V.Q
06.446 SF
PARCEL A 4 402 AC +
CONC WALK
(TYP)
ENTRY
FIRE HYDRANT
ASPHALT PARKING LOT
ENTRY
Y
Graphic Scala
y w g _w vn
Ia rm1
ROPERTY LINE TYPICAL
30' UTILITY, DRAINAGE &
MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
CONC WALK
FRE HYDRANT
LINE
REV: 9/22/I7 I i ASPHALT PAMNO I
REV: 8/:51/17 WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE
® 120 Edgcmcre WRY SaHth Conditional Use Site Plan
Naples, FI. 34,05 220 Basik Dr.
PhaPH (239) 263-1222 Collier County
Blau- A. Foley, P.L., LLC (:ell (2:59) 289-4900
i,> Fax (239) 263-0472 O"E GRO,£OT NO I FINE N0. SCA
IE SHEET
Civil 1:IlgtrlCl'T(Dl'\'CIOL,1m CIli CIIUSUII.1111 E—m011 f01e000Qf101.cOm 3—Z]—$tll) AE NOfad - of I
Conditional Use Site Plan
CU-PL20160001875, 220 BASIK DR
Page 3 of 9
Revised Date: December 5, 2017
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
SUBJECT PARCEL: The site is currently developed, zoned General Commercial (C-4) District
SURROUNDING:
North: Vacant with outdoor storage, zoned Travel Trailer Recreational
Vehicle Campground (TTRVC) District
East: Parking lot, zoned Rural Agricultural (A) District, with a parking
exemption to allow off-site parking on a contiguous lot zoned
Agriculture (A)
South: Tamiami Trail E (US 41) then Vacant, zoned Marco Shores/Fiddlers
Creek PUD
West: Parking lot, zoned Heavy Commercial (C-5) District
CU-PL20160001875, 220 BASIK DR
Page 4 of 9
Revised Date: December 5, 2017
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed this request and offered the following comments:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The petitioner's property, as identified on the Future Land
Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP, is designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD),
Receiving Lands, as identified on the FLUM within the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Based
on analysis, the proposed conditional use is consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. (See
Attachment A of FLUE Consistency Review dated 9-22-2017)
Transportation Element: The Transportation Services Division has reviewed this petition and
has determined the project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP,
which states,
"The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development,
with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall
not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway
segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that
is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway
segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to
operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning
period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application
has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following
occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal
to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to
or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
C. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where
it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant
and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant
impacts on all roadways. "
The proposed self -storage development will generate a projected total of +/- 9 PM peak hour, 2 -
way trips for the proposed facility on the adjacent local roadway, Tamiami Trail East (US 41).
This represents a net reduction of +/-286 PM peak hour, 2 -way trips compared to the previously
approved Flea Market -Shopping Center. Therefore, the subject Conditional Use can be found
consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP, and the Traffic Impact
Statement (TIS) indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to
accommodate this project within the 5 -year planning period.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning Section
staff reviewed the petition. The subject property does not have a preserve requirement. The
proposal is consistent with the with the CCME.
CU-PL20160001875, 220 BASIK DA
Page 5 of 9
Revised Dale: December 5, 2017 _
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed this petition. The subject
property does not have a preserve requirement as the subject property was cleared for agricultural
use prior to 1975 clearing regulations. This project does not require Environmental Advisory
Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project
reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Before any Conditional Use recommendation can be offered to the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA), the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) must make findings that: 1) approval of
the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other
property of uses in the same district of neighborhood; and 2) all specific requirements for the
individual Conditional Use will be met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning
the following matters, where applicable:
1. Section 2.03.03 D.I.c., of the LDC permits conditional uses in the General Commercial
(C-4) zoning district zoning district.
The requested use for a self -storage facility is allowed as conditional uses in the General
Commercial (C-4) zoning district, subject to the standards and procedures established in
section 10.08.00, conditional uses procedures, of the LDC.
2. Consistency with the Land Development Code (LDC) and the Growth Management Plan
(GMP).
This request is consistent with the GMP and, with the conditions proposed by staff, this project
will be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the LDC.
3. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
and access in case of fire or catastrophe.
Ingress and egress to the subject property would be limited to Tamiami Trail East (US 41).
The TIS submitted by the applicant indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient
capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 -year planning period. This project will not
adversely impact the surrounding roadway network. Moreover, the existing access points
adequately connect to the adjacent parking lot and the property does provide sidewalks for
pedestrian safety.
4. The affect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise,
glare, economic or odor effects.
The subject site is currently zoned commercial: General Commercial (C-4) District. It is
surrounded to the north by vacant land with some outdoor storage and to the east by a parking
lot. To the south is vacant land. To the west is a parking lot. If approved, the proposed use
should have minimal impact on neighboring properties in relation to glare, economic or odor
CU-PL20160001875, 220 BASIK DR
Page 6 of 9
Revised Dale: December 5, 2017
effects. There are usually no odors associated with self -storage buildings. There will be little
impact associated with noise because this is proposed to be indoor storage.
5. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district.
If the proposed Conditions of Approval are adopted, the proposed self -storage facility (4225,
air conditioned and mini -and self -storage warehousing only) land use can be found compatible
with adjacent properties and other properties in the immediate area.
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations as outlined in this
staff report be recommended for approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The EAC did not review this petition because the site is under the size threshold (10 acres) to
require an Environmental Impact Statement.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
Blair A. Foley, P.E. on behalf of Heritage Property Holdings, LLC and Collier County staff,
conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on Thursday, November 9, 2017. The
meeting was held at 220 Basik Dr. at 5:30 pm.
The attached sign -in sheet shows three attendees other than the owner, consultant, and staff. Blair
Foley, consultant, conducted the meeting starting with introductions and an overview of the
Conditional Use request to allow enclosed mini -self storage warehousing within a General
Commercial (C-4) zoning district within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay -Receiving Lands
pursuant to Section 2.03.03.D.1.c.24 of the Collier County Land Development Code in place of
what was previously a flea market. The site already has appropriate building, access points,
buffers, and parking. Only the use would change. The attached Conditional Use site plan was
distributed to the attendees. A marked reduction in traffic and parking was noted and is recorded
on previously submitted documents.
Following the presentation, the meeting was opened up to attendees for questions. The following
is a synopsis of questions and responses:
Question/Comment 1: We're adjacent landowners. Just curious, how is this operating
currently? This facility.
Response (Blair): This is an information meeting about what we're requesting. If you
want to talk about procedure and how this is operating currently, I guess you'd have to talk
to someone at Collier County specifically.
Response (Tim): It was a flea market that has since closed down and now it is vacant. The
petitioner is wishing to convert this into a self -storage facility.
CU-PL20160001875, 220 BASIK DR
Page 7 of 9
Revised Dale: December 5, 2017
Question/Comment 2: Is it being used for storage currently?
Response (Tim): It is being used for personal storage. It was a flea market at one time.
County staff explained the next steps in the process. The Condition Use request will go forward to
the Collier County Planning Commission on December 21,2017, and then to the Board of Zoning
Appeals on February 13, 2018. The attendees had no further questions, so Mr. Foley thanked the
attendees for coming and the meeting was closed at approximately 5:45 p.m.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report on 11-29-17.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition CU-
PL20160001875 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval,
subject to the following conditions:
The 220 Basik Drive Conditional Use shall be limited to that which is depicted on the
conceptual site plan, identified as the "Conditional Use Site Plan — 220 Basik Dr" dated 3-
27-2017, and last revised 9-22-2017, prepared by Blair A. Foley, P.E. The site plan noted
is conceptual in nature for Conditional Use approval. The final design must be in
compliance with all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations.
CU-PL20 t 60001875, 220 BASIK DR
Page 8 of 9
Revised Date: December 5, 2017
PREPARED BY:
TIMOTHY MN, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
REVIEWED BY:
/ 'o"a—
r. zj�-�
RAY V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
APPROVED BY:
JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEP` R MENT HEAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE
It —29- 11
DATE
/Ia�4-0
DATE
/2-5-/
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the February 13, 2018 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Attachments: A. FLUE Consistency Review
CU-PI20160001875, 220 BASIK DR
Page 9 of 9
Revised Date: November 20, 2017
Attachment A
4C 0' -r CiOLlYlty
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
ZONING DIVISION
CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM
To: Timothy Finn, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: DUE September 22, 2017
Subject. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review of Proposed Conditional Use (2nd
PETITION NUMBER: PL20160001875 [REV: 2]
PETITION NAME: Heritage Property Holdings, LLC, Conditional Use
REQUEST: This petition requests a Conditional Use (CU) consisting of ±4.4 acres to allow self -storage
in the C-4, General Commercial zoning district.
LOCATION: The subject site is located on the northeast corner of Basik Drive and US 41 East, in
Section 18, Township 51 South, Range 27 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District, Receiving Lands, as identified on the Future Land Use Map within the Growth
Management Plan (GMP). This designation does not allow commercial zoning. However, at a hearing
on October 19, 1992, as part of the implementation of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance to
consider downzoning this and other properties that were zoned inconsistent with the Future Land
Use Map, the Board of County Commissioners determined that the subject site should retain its C-4
zoning (based upon compatibility considerations). Therefore, the existing C-4 zoning on the site is,
effectively, deemed to be "Consistent by Policy" [FLUE Policies 5.9 through 5.12] and can develop in
accordance with that zoning district— including requesting approval of any conditional use in the C-
4 district.
The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use for self -storage in the C-4, General Commercial zoning
district, specifically "Motor freight transportation and warehousing (4225, air conditioned and mini -
and self storage warehousing only)". The existing building on this property previously served as an
indoor flea market.
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new development to be compatible with, and
complementary to, surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance
04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). Comprehensive
Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the
petition in its entirety.
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of
Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and
-1-
redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold
italicized tent].
Objective 7:
Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing
development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows:
Policy 7.1:
The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting
collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating
intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (The subjectproperty fronts on
US 41 (Tamiami Trail East), classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element. No
direct connection(s) to US 41 will be made. Connections to US 41 will utilize Basik Drive, a
local roadway.]
Policy 7.2:
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle
congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The site
is proposed as a single development project. Given the small size of the property and scale of
the proposed development, a loop road or drive is not feasible. However, Basik Drive provides
internal circulation to the larger area.]
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or
interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use
type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of
the Transportation Element. (The site is one of many properties comprising this small, isolated
area (zoned C-4, C -S, I and TTRVC) surrounded by large -lot residential development and
undeveloped rural land. A perimeter drive on the site directly connects with an outdoor parking
area located adjacently to the east (previously serving the flea market on this site). An access
drive lies along the northerly edge of this adjacent property, and provides access to Trinity
Place (which serves the large -lot residential development to the east).
Access points are found along Basik Drive, also connecting to an outdoor parking area
previously serving the flea market on this site.]
Policy 7.4:
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of
densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [This Policy
is mostly not applicable given that this is a commercial development. Sidewalks currently line
both sides of Basik Drive, and along the frontage of the site, on the north side of US 41. No
deviation is requested pertaining to sidewalks, therefore, the project will be subject to LDC
requirements for provision of sidewalks.]
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed conditional use may be deemed consistent with
the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.
cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
G: Comp� Consistency Reviewsk2017
\\bcc.colliergov.net\data\GMD-LDS\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews12017\CUM-PL2016-1875 Heritage Properties R2_PNL.docx
—2—
RESOLUTION NO. 17-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW
ENCLOSED MINI -SELF STORAGE WAREHOUSING
WITHIN A GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-4) ZONING
DISTRICT WITHIN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE
OVERLAY -RECEIVING LANDS PURSUANT TO SECTION
2.03.03.A.1.c.24 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL
EAST, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET WEST OF TRINITY
PLACE, IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL201600001875)
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida,
and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish,
coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection
of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code
(Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among
which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and
constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as
in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a Conditional Use
to allow enclosed mini -self storage warehousing within a General Commercial (C-4) zoning
district within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay -Receiving Lands pursuant to Section
2.03.03.A.1.c.24 of the Collier County Land Development Code on the property hereinafter
described, and the Collier County Planning Commission has made findings that the granting of
the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and the specific requirements
governing the Conditional Use have been met and that satisfactory provision and arrangement
have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance
with Subsection 10.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.
[17 -CPS -01662/1381009/1] 76
CU-PL20160001875
11/30/17 Page 1 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
Petition Number PL -20160001875 filed by Heritage Property Holdings, LLC, with
respect to the property hereinafter described in Exhibit A, be and the same is hereby approved
for a Conditional Use to allow enclosed mini -self storage warehousing within a General
Commercial (C-4) Zoning District within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay -Receiving Lands
pursuant to Section 2.03.03.A1.c.24 of the Collier County Land Development Code, in
accordance with the Conceptual Site Plan described in Exhibit B, and subject to the conditions in
Exhibit C. Exhibits A, B, and C are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and super -majority vote, this day of
2017.
ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN
By:
Deputy Clerk PENNY TAYLOR, Chairman
Approved as to form and legality:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Description
Exhibit B - Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit C — Conditions of Approval
[17 -CPS -01662/1381009/1] 76
CU-PL20160001875
11/30/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 51
SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST LYING NORTH OF U.S. 41, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A POINT, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST SECTION LINE OF SECTION 18,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S.
41, AND BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE N54'19'26"W ALONG THE
NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF U.S.41 451.53'; THENCE BY A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, OF RADIUS 360.31'
AN ARC DISTANCE OF 220.85' SAID ARC BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING N18'06'S9"E 217.41'; THENCE
N00'33'23"E 236.98'; THENCE S89'26'36"E 303.51' TO THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 18, AFORESAID; THENCE
BINDING THEREON SOO'32'17"W 704.02' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TOGETHER WITH
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 51
SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST LYING NORTH OF U.S. 41, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A POINT, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST SECTION LINE OF SECTION 18,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S.
41; THENCE BINDING ON THE EAST LINE OS SAID SECTION N00'32'17"E 704.02' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N89'26'36"W 303.51'; THENCE NOO'33'23"E 15.00';THENCE S89'26'36"E 303.51' TO THE EAST LINE OF
SECTION 18 AFORESAID; THENCE BINDING THEREON 500'32'17"W 15.00' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Ls Exhibit B
Rl
n?q/�
2pp,
CATCH BASIN (TYP)
R/pyT
O/, Graphic Scale
w to
`a anon
PROPERTY LINE TYPICAL
t*! 30' UTILITY, DRAINAGE &
CENVTRYD MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
z
nI
CATCH BASIN
/ 9"x 18" OPENING it
CONC RAMP
FIRE HYDRANT CONIC WALK
oLANDS of
HERITAGE IR PR�ntt HOLDINGS i �
pp
GAZEBO Ba
B
I
CATCH BASIN (TYP)
LANDSCAPE BUFFER MATRIX
p
€
PAVERS
REWIRED PROVIDED
U541 IV TYPE D 15' TYPE D
BASIKDR 10' TYPED 10' TYPE D
EAST IV TYPE A 10' TYPE A
COVERED
NORTH 15' TYPE B 15' TYPE B
DRIVE IN ENTRY BAY PAVERS I FIRE HYDRANT
Ig
SELF—STORAGE PARKING
I F
1:20,000 ef+
1 Per 50 Veh/800t
+ 1 Per 300 of Office
86,446 of Total
x
CONC WALK
Storage:
(TYP)
85,446 / 20.000 — }„�
e
Office:
1,000 of / 300 m
C
I STORY WOOD FRAME BUILDING PROPERTY LINE
TOTAL REQUIRED - ®
FLOOR ELEV 7.J6 N.A.V.O TYPICAL
TOTAL PROVIDED -86,440
2
SF
PARCEL A 4.402 AC + —
}
w
3
3
&
0
CONIC WALK FIRE HYDRANT
$
(TYP)
D�
CATCH BASIN
COVERED ENTRY COVERED ENTRY DO
L
J L��
FIRE HYDRANT
xc xe xe HIII xc xc xc °
a
ASPHALT PARKING LOT
Y
DU PS RS
Io Q
p On
a
REV: 9/22/17
ASPHALT PAVING
REV: 8/31/17
WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE
Conditional Use Site Plan
® 120 Edgemere Way South
n
Naples, . 34105
220 Basik Dr.
Phone(239)) 263-1222
Collier County
Blair A. Foley, P.E., LLC 289-4900
Fox 2393
OAT'
PROJECT NO.
FILE No.
SCALE
SHEET
Xll
263-0472
Civil Engineer /Development Consultant E—mail fols0000aol.com
3-27-2017
As Noted
1 of 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The 220 Basik Drive Conditional Use shall be limited to that which is depicted on the
conceptual site plan, identified as the "Conditional Use Site Plan — 220 Basik Dr" dated 3-
27-2017, and last revised 9-22-2017, prepared by Blair A. Foley, P.E. The site plan noted is
conceptual in nature for Conditional Use approval. The final design must be in compliance
with all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations.
[17 -CPS -01662/1381011/1177
11/30/17
AGENDA ITEM 9-B
Cotler County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2017
SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20150001459; THE ANTILLES RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENT:
Owner/Applicant:
JMD Developments and Investments, LLC
940 Cape Marco Drive, Unit 2506
Marco Island, FL 34145
REOUESTED ACTION:
Agent:
Patrick Vanasse, AICP
RWA Engineering
6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200
Naples, FL 34109
The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
application to rezone property from a Mobile Home (MH) zoning district to a Residential Planned
Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district. The subject property is comprised of four parcels
owned by JMD Developments and Investments, LLC. It was previously owned by Diamond
Shores, Inc., also known as Woodlake Condominium Association of Marco Shores, Inc.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located east of SR 951 on Port An Prince Road, in Section 15, Township
51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 43.77+/- acres (see location map
on page 2).
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
This petition seeks to rezone the property to RPUD to allow for the development of up to 212
multi -family dwelling units or 138 single-family dwelling units.
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 1 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
LOCATION MAP
za wa
- 90
off:_.
fir' QO QCCOECCC
� �'j��i).
9 ®\r n
5
�'��,'
O �y
O OoOO
0 0
o �O
u Qp0
-
PROJECT
—
v `c v
LOCATION
■v�v��o
v
ao
I ��4o00i
o4e CdOCEC.pO�� � ,p=p
�_�� pp �dER:CEC04O��10p�r, P
r o
LOCATION MAP
PETITION #PUDZ-PL-2015-1459
ZONING MAP
za wa
- 90
off:_.
fir' QO QCCOECCC
� �'j��i).
SLESOECd00000to
�'��,'
O �y
O OoOO
0 0
o �O
u Qp0
-
—
v `c v
■v�v��o
v
ao
I ��4o00i
o4e CdOCEC.pO�� � ,p=p
�_�� pp �dER:CEC04O��10p�r, P
r o
PETITION #PUDZ-PL-2015-1459
ZONING MAP
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The subject project proposes a density of 4.84 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). This section of
the staff report identifies the land uses, zoning classifications, and maximum approved densities
for properties surrounding boundaries of The Antilles RPUD:
North: Undeveloped land, with a current zoning designation of Rural Agricultural (A)
(0.20 DU/AC)
East: Developed residential and golf -course, with a current zoning designation of
Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD (2.08 DU/AC)
South: Developed residential, with a current zoning designation of Marco
Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD (2.08 DU/AC)
West: A canal, then farther west are mobile homes, with a current zoning designation
of MH (7,26 DU/AC)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA),
as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the FLUE of the GMP. Relevant to this
petition, this designation allows residential development (variety of unit types), including
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 3 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
associated accessory recreational uses and open space uses, which are the uses proposed in this
PUD.
Under the FLUE's Density Rating System, the project is eligible for a maximum density of three
DU/), without providing affordable -workforce housing which is not proposed, see below
calculations. Eligible density is not an entitlement. The applicant proposes a maximum of 212
multi -family dwelling units (DUs) or 138 single-family DUs, yielding 4.84 DU/A (212 DU/43.77a
= 4.84 DU/a) or 3.15 DU/A (138 DU/43.77a = 3.15 DU/a), respectively.
Base Density 4 DU/A
CHHA Density Reduction -1 DU/A
Maximum eligible density 3 DU/A x 43.77 acres = 131.31 = 131 DUs
The existing Mobile Home (MH) zoning on the site pre -dates the 1989 adoption of the GMP and
has been deemed "consistent by policy;" the site is identified on Map FLUE -12 as Improved
Property, existingzoning oning consistent with FLUE by Policy 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14. Policy 5.1 of the
FLUE provides that the residential zoning of such "consistent by policy" properties may be
changed so long as the new zoning district does not allow a greater number of DU's than the
existing zoning, and provided the overall intensity of the proposed zoning district is not of a greater
intensity than the existing zoning — as determined by a comparison of public facility impacts. The
petitioner asserts that consistency with FLUE Policy 5.1 is achieved (refer to rezone application
"Antilles RPUD Rezone Considerations, section i)" and identifies the uses and densities allowed
by the existing and proposed zoning districts, and submitted a comparative analysis of public
facility impacts of the existing and proposed uses and densities.
FLUE Policy 5.1 states, in relevant part:
Policy 5.1: All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties
that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have
nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for
in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply:
[... I
c. For such residentially -zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the
authorized number of dwelling units in the new zoning district does not exceed that
authorized by the existing zoning district, andprovided the overall intensity of development
allowed by the new zoning district does not exceed that allowed by the existing zoning
district.
I ... I
e. Overall intensity of development shall be determined based upon a comparison of public
facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district.
FLUE Policy 5.1 contains a two-part test. Below is staff's analysis and determination of each part.
Part L• Does the new zoning district allow the same or a lower number of dwelling units as the
existing zoning district?
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 4 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
This evaluation requires a comparison of existing and proposed density. The existing MH zoning
district allows a maximum density of 7.26 DU/A based on minimum lot area requirement of 6,000
square feet (43,560 Sq.Ft./6,000 Sq.Ft. = 7.26); this yields a maximum of 317.77 DUs (7.26 DU/A
x 43.77 acres = 317.77 DUs 4 318 DUs). The proposed Antilles RPUD permits 212 multi -family
DUs (a 33% reduction) or 138 single-family DUs (a 57% reduction).
Conclusion: The new (proposed) zoning district does allow the same or a lower number of dwelling
units as the existing zoning district.
Part H. Is the overall intensity of residential land use allowed by the existing zoning district not
exceeded in the new zoning district (based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as
allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district)?
The applicant provided a comparative analysis of public facility impacts for category "A" public
facilities (arterial and collector roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, parks and recreation, solid
waste and drainage) and schools that yielded impacts which are lessened upon all facilities, except
drainage. Impacts upon drainage facilities remain the same given that the same standard applies
for either development scenario (though the petitioner did show a reduction in amount of
impervious surface area). Based on the analysis provided by the applicant, Comprehensive
Planning staff concurs with this assessment.
Conclusion: The new (proposed) zoning district does not exceed the overall intensity of residential
land use allowed by the existing zoning district.
Also, staff notes that the CHHA prohibits new rezoning to allow mobile home development; this
petition does the opposite — it removes mobile home zoning.
Analysis of relevant FLUE policies is provided below.
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area.
Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review
of the petition in its entirety.
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of
Collier County, the following FLUE policies are implemented for new development and
redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [in non -
bolded text].
Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places:
The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier
County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment
projects, where applicable.
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 5 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their
properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made
without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code.
Conclusion: The subject site does not abut an arterial or collector road.
Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help
reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for
traffic signals.
Conclusion: The proposed Master Plan, Exhibit `C', shows a loop road connecting to Port Au
Prince Road, which will provide access to Collier Blvd. (SR 951).
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless
of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed
in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element.
Conclusion: The site abuts Port An Prince Road to the north; adjacent properties to the east, west
and south are developed thereby precluding interconnections. Comprehensive Planning leaves
review of the Transportation Element to Transportation Planning staff.
Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities
with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices
and types.
Conclusion: The petitioner has requested a deviation from the Land Development Code (LDC)
6.06.02.A for sidewalk to be provided on only the south sides of the street at two locations: on the
south side of the stub roadway that runs adjacent to the lake area (at the southwest corner of the
project) and on the south side of the first segment of the entrance roadway that runs adjacent to the
preserve (at the northwest corner of the project). All other roadway segments will have sidewalks
according to the LDC. No homes will front on roadway that lacks sidewalk, therefore, Staff agrees
with this deviation. The property size and configuration limits the ability to provide varying
densities and civic facilities; three housing types are included which may reflect different prices.
Open space is provided for as required by the LDC. A potential bicycle/pedestrian connection to
Port An Prince Road is shown on Exhibit `C', PUD Master Plan; and is contained in Exhibit `F',
Development Commitments, Transportation: B. Staff supports this connection.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of
the GMP.
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact
Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using
the 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 6 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states,
"The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development,
with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall
not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway
segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that
is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway
segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to
operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning
period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application
has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following
occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal
to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to
or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
C. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where
it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant
and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant
impacts on all roadways. "
The proposed PUD on the subject property was reviewed based on the 2016 AUIR Inventory
Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed residential development
will generate approximately 140 PM peak hour two-way trips which represents a reduction of
approximately 43 PM peak hour two-way trips from the currently approved mobile home
development. Staff also reviewed the recently approved 2017 AUIR as part of this staff report.
The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities:
Roadway
Link
2016
Current Peak
2016 AUIR
2017
AUIR
Hour Peak
Remaining
AUIR
Existing
Direction Service
Capacity
Remaining
LOS
Volume/Peak
Capacity
Direction
Collier
Manatee Road
D
2,200/North
536
427
Boulevard
to Mainsail
Drive
Collier
Mainsail
C
2,200/North
609
499
Boulevard
Drive to
Note: LOS
Marco Island
D
Bridge
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 7 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
Based on the 2016 and 2017 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the 5 -year planning period.
Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation
Element of the GMP.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found
this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (COME). A
minimum of 4.04 acres of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and
dedicated to Collier County. The Project's current Master Plan proposes a 5.04± acre preserve
area.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as
this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of
consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the
GMP.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Applications to rezone to or to amend RPUDs shall be in the form of an RPUD Master Plan of
development, along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table.
The RPUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed
deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use
petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in
LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the
"PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.17, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission
Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's
recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their
recommendation to the Board, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning
or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the
heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses:
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document to address environmental concerns. Through review of this petition, it was determined
that the 4.88: acre preserve, previously identified on the Woodlake Condo Site Development Plan
(SDP) 96-11 Master Plan drawing as Tract B on the Woodlake Plat, would need to remain as
preserve, less the designated 30 -foot roadway easement located along the north property line. The
removal of the roadway easement reduces the preserve acreage requirement for the Project from
4.88: acres to 4.04: acres, as a minimum. The Project's current Master Plan provides a 5.04:
acre preserve area. There were no listed species observed on the site.
Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance
with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project, subject to the two
Transportation commitments listed in Exhibit F of the RPUD document.
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 8 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
Utilities Review • Public Utilities staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and
the LDC and recommends approval of this project.
Emergency Management Review: Emergency Management staff has reviewed the petition for
compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and recommends approval of this project.
Landscape Review: The Master Plan shows undisturbed vegetation would remain along the
RPUD's north property boundary. A 15-foot wide Type B Buffer is proposed along the west
property line where abutting the canal and the mobile homes in the Port An Prince subdivision.
The Master Plan proposes enhanced fifteen (15)-foot Type B Buffers along the east and south
RPUD boundaries. If this petition is approved, the plant material will have to be comparable to
the landscape commitment that was made by the petitioner at the second Neighborhood
Information Meeting (NIM) held on January 26, 2017. (NOTE: These commitments have been
incorporated into the PUD Document.)
Each single -family and two-family lot is required to provide at least one canopy tree. Staff does
not anticipate the development standards proposed for these type of dwellings would accommodate
the required canopy tree per lot; however, this type of detailed analysis, to ensure compliance with
the LDC, will appropriately occur during a subsequent development process.
Parks and Recreation Review: Parks and Recreation staff has reviewed the petition for compliance
with the GMP and the LDC, and recommends approval of this project.
Affordable Housing Review: Affordable housing is not proposed for this project.
Historic Preservation Review: Historic Preservation staff has reviewed the petition for compliance
with the GMP and the LDC, and recommends approval of this project.
School District: At this time, there is sufficient capacity within the elementary and middle
concurrency service areas and in an adjacent high school concurrency service area of the proposed
development. At the time of SDP or platting, the project will be evaluated for school concurrency.
Zoning Services Review: Aerial photography from the Collier County Property Appraiser reveals
that many of the mobile home units were installed on the subject property between 1985 and 1995
but later removed prior to 2008. Staff analyzed the proposed density and compared it to the
densities on the abutting properties. The abutting property to the north is an undeveloped parcel
zoned A. To the east and south, there are properties zoned Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD.
As previously mentioned in the Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning portion of the staff report, the
maximum density of the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD is 2.08 (DU/AC); however, the
abutting subdivision to the south, Fiddler's Creek, Pepper Tree Village and Bent Creek Village,
was developed at approximately 2.9 dwelling units per acre (see cross-hatched area in aerial
photograph on following page).
Also, as previously mentioned, the mobile home development located directly west of the subject
project is zoned MH, which allows for a maximum density of 7.26 dwelling units per acre. This
petition proposes a density of 4.84 dwelling units per acre, which is compatible to the surrounding
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 9 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
properties to the south, east and west, and is less dense than what is currently allowed by the MH
zoning district.
Staff analyzed the proposed uses and associated development standards in The Antilles RPUD and
compared them with the Residential — "R" (R) tracts in the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD.
The R tract in Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD allows for single-family residential (detached,
patio, and zero -lot -line), duplex and two-family, townhouses, cluster housing, multi -family
residential (including Garden Apartments), in addition to churches and other minor uses. The
RPUD proposes single-family residential (attached and detached), and multi -family residential.
Therefore, the proposed uses in the RPUD would be compatible with the allowed uses in the R
tracts of the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD. Moreover, the proposed Antilles RPUD
development standards are compatible with the surrounding areas around the Antilles RPUD
property, see Exhibit B of the PUD Ordinance.
Aerial (County GIS)
The below table shows the development standards for principal structures proposed within the
RPUD and how they compare to the R tracts of the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD, the cluster
housing provisions of LDC Section 4.02.04, and the townhouse provisions of LDC Section
5.05.07.
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 10 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
Fiddler's Creek classifies SFD unit attached and townhouses the same, whereas the LDC defines
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 11 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
Single
Family
Detached
(SFD) Unit
Detached
Duplex &
Two -Family
Single Family
Detached
(SFD) Unit
Attached' &
Townhouse'
Multi Family
Dwelling
(MFD) Unit
Lot Area
The Antilles'
Fiddler's Creek'
Cluster Housing'/Townhouse
4,000 s.f.
6,500 s.f
3,000 s.f.
3,500 s.f.
3,500 s.f.
6,000 s.f
1,600 s.f.
3,000 s.f.
2,500 s.f
n/a
1 acre
n/a
Floor Area
The Antilles
1,200 s.f.
1,000 s.f.
1,000 s.f.
1,000 s.f.
Fiddler's Creek
1,500 s.f.
1,400 s.f
1,200 s.f.
1,000 s.f.
Cluster Housing/Townhouse
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Lot Width
The Antilles
40 feet
35 feet
16 feet
n/a
Fiddler's Creeks
50 feet
35 feet
30 feet
150
Cluster Housing/Townhouse
206/40 feet
206/40 feet
30 feet
n/a
Front Yard
The Antilles'• s
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
Fiddler's Creek
25 feet
20 feet9
20 feet'
25 feet 14
Cluster Housing/Townhouse
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
n/a
Front Yard — Side Entry
The Antilles
12 feet
12 feet
12 feet
12 feet
Fiddler's Creek
15 feet
10 feet
10 feet
15 feet14
Cluster Housing/Townhouse
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
n/a
Side Yard
The Antilles
5 feet
0/5 feet
0/5 feet
7.5 feet
Fiddler's Creek
7.5 feet
0/7.5 feet
0/0.5 BH
0.5 BH 14
Cluster Housing/Townhouse
5/10 feet10
5/10 feetl0
0/10 feet"
n/a
Rear Yard
The Antilles"
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
Fiddler's Creek
1013/20 feet
1013/20 feet
1013/20 feet
0.513H"•
15BH15
Cluster Housing/Townhouse
10 feet
10 feet
20 feet
n/a
Distance Between Structures
The Antilles
10 feet
0/10 feet
0/10 feet
15 feet
Fiddler's Creek
15 feet
0/15 feet
0.5 SBH
0.5 SBH
Cluster Housing/Townhouse
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Zoned Height
The Antilles
35 feet
35 feet
35 feet
42 feet
Fiddler's Creek
35 feet
35 feet
35 feet
100 feetl4, 16
Cluster Housing/Townhouse
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Actual Height
The Antilles
40 feet
40 feet
40 feet
45 feet
Fiddler's Creek
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Cluster Housing/Townhouse
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Fiddler's Creek classifies SFD unit attached and townhouses the same, whereas the LDC defines
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 11 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
townhouses as a group of three (3) or more dwelling units attached to each other by a common wall or roof
wherein each unit has direct exterior access and no unit is located above another.
2 Per unit
3 Each half of a duplex unit requires a lot area allocation of 3,500 square feet for a total minimum lot area
of 7,000 square feet.
4 Minimum lot area per single-family unit.
5 Minimum lot width may be reduced by fifty percent (50%) for cul-de-sac or curved frontage lots
provided minimum lot area requirement is still maintained, and minimum lot widths are obtained at front of
the buildable area when setbacks are applied.
6 Cul-de-sac lots
7 For MFD units, the front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of curb or edge of pavement, if not
curbed. For all other unit types, front yard setbacks shall be measured from the right-of-way line. The
minimum fifteen (15) -foot front yard setback may be reduced to twelve (12) feet where the unit has a recessed
or side -entry garage. Front -loading garages shall be setback a minimum of 23 feet from edge of sidewalk.
a For corner lots, only one (1) front yard setback shall be required. The yard that does not provide vehicle
access shall require a ten (10) -foot setback.
9 SFD units which provide for two (2) parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest
parking other than in private driveways may reduce the front yard requirement to five (5) feet for the garage
and fifteen (15) feet for the remaining structures.
10 Zero -lot -line on one (1) side.
" Zero (0) lot line, otherwise ten (10) feet for principal structures, or one-half (Y�) the height of the sum of
the walls facing one another, whichever is greater.
11 Measured from Perimeter Buffer or Lake Maintenance Easement.
" With approval from Fiddler's Creek Design Review Committee, rear yards for principal structures on
lots which abut a golf course, lake, open space, or reserve area. Setback from lake for all principal and
accessory uses may be zero (0) feet providing architectural bank treatment is incorporated into design and
subject to written approval from Project Plan Review.
14 Building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation
to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure.
1J Maximum height of structures shall be ten (10) stories or 100 feet, whichever is greater. Structures over
four (4) stories and fifty (50) feet in height shall be setback a minimum of the building height from a) PUD
boundaries, except where the boundary is abutting a state-owned conservation land or where the PUD abuts
rural -designated land; and b) where the abutting land use (on a separate tract) is a single-family attached or
detached dwelling unit.
LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make
findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the
findings in LDC Section 10.02.08":
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 12 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access,
drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
The subject site fronts on Port Au Prince Drive. The northwestern portion of the property
is located approximately 2,870 feet east of Collier Boulevard. Water and wastewater
facilities are located within the right-of-way, and each has enough capacity to serve the
proposed RPUD. Drainage solutions would be evaluated in connection with SDP/platting
and construction permits.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly
as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing
operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or
maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's
Office, demonstrate unified control of the property.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the
relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion
of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum).
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering
and screening requirements.
As described in the Staff Analysis section of this staff report subsection Landscape Review,
staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding
area. The Master Plan proposes the appropriate perimeter landscape buffers.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The RPUD is required to provide at least 60% of the gross area for usable open space. No
deviation from the open space requirement is being requested, and compliance would be
demonstrated at the time of SDP or platting.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the
Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 13 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
of first development order (SS or Plat), at which time, a new TIS will be required to
demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's
development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations
when development approvals are sought, including but not limited to any plats and or site
development plans.
The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater disposal systems and
potable water supplies, to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by
the petitioner, and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously be
addressed when development approvals are sought.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations
in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.
Six deviations are proposed in connection with this request to rezone to RPUD. See
deviations section of the staff report.
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":
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies
of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern.
The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding
Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the
existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
There are no other RPUDs located within the immediate vicinity of the subject property;
however, properties that abut the project to the east and south are zoned PUD and allow
for residential uses. For all intents and purposes, the abutting PUD zoning district is a
similar and related zoning classification to the proposed district, because the County did
not adopt the RPUD zoning district until 2004 (pursuant to Ordinance 04-41). Therefore,
the proposed petition would not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 14 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
districts.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
The square -shape boundary of the RPUD logically follows the external boundary of the
parcels assembled for the rezoning.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed change is not necessary, per se, but it is being requested in compliance with
the LDC provisions to seek such changes. It should be noted that the proposed uses are
not allowed under the current zoning classification.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of
peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time,
i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation
Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first
development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply
with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development
approvals are sought.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed RPUD request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area.
Water quality for this project will be controlled through Stormwater Best Management
Practices (BMPs), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Urban Stormwater
Management Program (USMP), on-site stormwater treatment, attenuation storage, and an
Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the project's stormwater management system,
calculations, and design criteria at time of SDP and/or plat review.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
It is not anticipated this RPUD would reduce light or air to the adjacent areas.
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 15 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
areas.
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or
external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including
zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination
is driven by market value.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development
of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
The abutting site to the north is currently undeveloped and staff does not anticipate this
proposed RPUD would serve as a deterrent to its improvement.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare.
If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment,
then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are
consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does
not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined
to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public
interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
The proposed uses and development standards cannot be used in accordance with the
existing classification.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County.
It is staffs opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards and developer
commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the
community.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not
specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses
under the proposed zoning classification.
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 16 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site
alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state,
and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again
later as part of the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and
services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00
regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with
all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except
as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff
responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and
those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted
with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. The concurrency review for APF
is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this rezoning will have
no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing.
DEVIATION DISCUSSION:
The petitioner is seeking six deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are
directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner's rationale and staff
analysis/recommendation is outlined below.
Proposed Deviation #1 (Width of Rights -of -Way)
"Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.0l.N, "Street System Requirements," which
requires minimum local street right-of-way width of 60 feet, to allow for a 50 -foot right-of-way
minimum width for the private streets internal to the proposed development."
Petitioner's Justifteation: The applicant responded to this request as follows:
Minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet is requested for local streets within the Antilles RPUD.
This deviation is justified because of the size and the small-scale neighborhood character of this
project. A 50 foot right-of-way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the
vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs. The 50 -
foot right-of-way accomplishes traffic calming to provide a safer transportation system within the
neighborhood.
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 17 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation,
finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that
"the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations."
Proposed Deviation #2 (On -Premises Directional Signs)
"Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC section 5.06.02.13.5, "Development Standards for Signs
within Residential Districts", which requires on -premises directional signs to be setback a
minimum of 10' from edge of roadway, to allow a setback of 5' from the edge of a private
roadway/drive aisle."
Petitioner's Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows:
This deviation will allow locational flexibility for directional signage internal to the RPUD. A
unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community, thereby ensuring
a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. All directional signage will meet the Clear
sight Distance requirements in accordance with LDC Section 6.06.05.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance
with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived
without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section
10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Proposed Deviation #3 (Model Homes)
"Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.3.e "Model Homes and Sales Centers",
which limits temporary use permits for model homes to 3 years, to allow a temporary use permit
of 5 years without the need to request approval of a Conditional Use petition."
Petitioner's Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows:
This deviation is requested to allow temporary permits for model homes to be a duration of 5 years
which is consistent with the projected buildout of this community as outlined in the TIS. It is
reasonable and appropriate to have model homes available to tour during the entire sales and
buildout period. The models will be clustered in one area and separated from occupied homes as
much as practicable in order to minimize any potential or perceived impact to future residents.
The LDC already allows this use on a temporary basis, provides a standard time limitation that
applies to all developments and requires a Conditional Use to determine if the extended period is
adequate. The Conditional Use process is redundant and not required in this case since the PUD
process provides oversight and the ability to determine the project's buildout period.
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 18 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance
with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived
without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section
10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is `justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Proposed Deviation #4 (Off -Street Parkins)
"Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04 "Parking Space Requirements", which
requires recreational areas within multi -family developments to calculate parking at 50% of
normal requirements where the majority of dwelling units are not within 300 feet of the recreation
facilities and at 25% of normal requirements where the majority of dwelling units are within 300
feet of the recreation facilities to allow the parking requirement for the recreation facility to be
calculated at 25%."
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant responded to this request as follows
Deviation #4 will apply only if the project is developed as multi family. The deviation is being
requested in order to substitute 20 of the 54 required parking spaces at the recreation facility with
golf cart and off-site overflow vehicle parking spaces. A total of 60 parking spaces (including 14
golf cart spaces) will be available for the recreation facility, as shown on the chart below.
Throughout the entire Antilles development, required parking spaces are provided entirely under
the buildings. Overflow surface parking is also provided at each building.
The deviation requests that the parking calculation for those multi family developments with over
50% of the units that are located within 300 feet of the recreation facility be used. The Antilles
recreation facility is centrally located within the development and will be within 300 feet of 60
units, or 22%. The remaining units are further than 300 feet from the recreational facility,
however, the community has been designed to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclist and golf carts.
A complete sidewalk plan interconnects each building with one another, as well as the recreation
area. Golf cart parking is accounted for in addition to surplus vehicle parking adjacent to all of
the residential buildings, as well as 14 golf cart spaces at the recreation facility, as shown in the
table below. Golf cart spaces are provided under each residential building as well.
As shown in the table below, parking calculated at 50% for the applicable uses within the
recreation area equals 54 spaces. Likewise, 25% equals 32 spaces. This deviation is requesting a
reduction in the requirement to allow the recreation area to provide 34 vehicle spaces, 14 golf
cart spaces, and overflow parking just outside of the rec area of 12 spaces for a total of 60 spaces,
plus bicycle parking as required by the LDC.
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 19 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance
with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived
without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section
10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Proposed Deviation #5 (Preservation Standards)
"Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5, Preservation Standards which requires
preserve areas to be interconnected within the site, to permit the potential future roadway
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 20 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
REDUCTION
REDUCTION
#
TO 50% FOR
TO 25% FOR
REQ'D
QUANTITY
UNIT
SPACES
MULTI-
MULTI -
CATEGORY
FAMILY
FAMILY
Recreation Facilities
1/100 sf
2352
SF
24
12
6
Indoors
Includes: Fitness / Game Room / Bingo
Recreation Facilities
3/court
6
Court
18
9
4.5
outdoors
Includes: 4 Pickleball / 2 Bocce
Office
1/300 sf
2810
SF
10
10
10
Swimming Pool
1/75 sf
1000
SF
13
7
3.5
5,000 sf assumed
1/125 sf
4000
SF
32
16
8
TOTAL PARKING
SPACES REQUIRED
69
54
32
PARKING SPACES
PROVIDED ON
34
RECREATION AREA
SITE
GOLF CART PARKING
SPACES PROVIDED ON
14
RECREATION AREA
SITE
OVERFLOW PARKING
PROVIDED
12
TOTAL RECREATION
AREA PARKING
60
5%Of
Bicycle Parking
3
2
Car #
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance
with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived
without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section
10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Proposed Deviation #5 (Preservation Standards)
"Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5, Preservation Standards which requires
preserve areas to be interconnected within the site, to permit the potential future roadway
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 20 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
interconnection, as shown on the PUD Master Plan, to cross the existing preserve located along
the northern boundary of the PUD."
Petitioner's Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows:
Deviation #5 will only come into play if the property to the north is developed in the future. This
deviation is being requested to allow a potential future roadway interconnection with the property
to the North in the event that property is developed. This potential roadway would allow motorized
and non -motorized interconnectivity which could provide access and walkability benefits to the
residents of both communities. The minimum preserve requirement for the Antilles project is 4.04
acres. The proposed preserve area depicted on the current Master Plan is + 5.036 acres which
exceeds the minimum requirement. If the roadway interconnection is built the applicant commits
to maintaining the minimum required preserve of 4.04. If the roadway interconnection is never
built the residents of this community will benefit from greater open space and natural vegetation.
If the roadway interconnection is built in the future, a replat will be necessary and the roadway
will be identified as a separate tract at that time.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Collier County GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1. (13) states,
"The County may grant a deviation to the native vegetation retention requirements of CCME
Policy 6.1.1 (2)" which states:
The preservation of native vegetation shall include canopy, under -story and ground cover
emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, which may include connection to offsite
preserves. The purpose for identifying the largest contiguous area is to provide for a core area
that has the greatest potential for wildlife habitat by reducing the interface between the
preserve area and development which decreases the conflicts from other land uses. Criteria
for determining the dimensional standards of the preserve are to be set out in the Land
Development Code.
This policy was set forth in LDC Section 3.05.07 A.5. which states "Preservation areas shall be
interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors."
Environmental Planning staff recommends approval of this deviation as the project is providing an
additional acre of preserve above the minimum requirement of 4.04 acres.
Proposed Deviation #6 (Sidewalks)
"Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A, which requires construction of five-foot wide
sidewalks on both sides of local streets, to allow a single five-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of
the entrance roadway and a single five-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of the roadway stub as
indicated on the master plan. The remainder of the sidewalks on the spine road will meet LDC Section
6.06.02."
Petitioner's Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows:
Due to the constraints created by the configuration of the project and the preserve area
requirements, the street right-of-way width is restricted at the north side of the entrance on Indies
Drive East. A sidewalk is provided on the south side of the entrance creating an interconnection
at the entrance to and within the project. The area to the north of the entrance at Indies Drive East
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 21 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
is preserve area, therefore no homes are located on the north side of the entrance road. A typical
right-of-way section is provided on Exhibit J
The roadway stub located at the west end of Indies Drive East is adjacent to a lake area and no
homes are to be located along this section. A sidewalk is provided on the south side oflndies Drive
East providing interconnection within the project. A typical right-of-way section is provided on
Exhibit I..
As proposed, the sidewalks will provide a comprehensive circulation throughout the community.
Other than the identified stub -out location and the project entrance, the proposed sidewalk
network meets the requirement of providing sidewalks on both sides of the road and ensures that
all homes are provided pedestrian access andfully lly interconnected to one another. The proposed
deviation will not adversely impact pedestrian mobility, public health and safety, nor is it contrary
to the intent of the sidewalk requirements. This deviation will also allow us to avoid impacts to the
preserve area.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance
with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived
without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section
10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The applicant conducted a NIM on May 10, 2016 at the South County Regional Library at 8065
Lely Cultural Parkway in Naples. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:44 p.m. and ended
at 7:17 p.m. The NIM meeting minutes are included in Attachment B. The petitioner proposed
280 MFD units or 138 SFD units with a maximum building height of 42 feet. Many of the
questions from the public dealt with the proposed building height, lighting, noise, setbacks, selling
price, building types, density, landscaping, traffic, anticipated date for commencement of
construction, and trees that were apparently cut down.
A second NIM was held on January 26, 2017 at the same venue as the first NIM. This meeting
commenced at 4:34 p.m. and ended at 5:18 p.m. The applicant gave a presentation, highlighting
the main differences in the project between the first NIM and this NIM. The minutes for this
meeting are also included in Attachment B. The public asked questions pertaining to proposed
sidewalks, landscaping and buffering, building height, base flood elevation, installing a traffic
signal, and whether the project would be gated community. At this NIM, the petitioner proposed
less MFD units at this NIM than the previous NIM (i.e., 212 MFD units compared with 280 MDF
units). Similar to the original NIM, the petitioner presented a maximum building height of 42 feet;
however, at this NIM, the petitioner committed to restrict the building height along the east and
south boundaries to two (2) stories, a zoned height of 30 feet, and an actual height of 35 feet. These
east and south buffers would also be "enhanced." Also, the buildings along the south boundary of
the RPUD would be setback at least 40 feet from the existing wall that was installed within the
buffer of the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD. The dwelling units proposed along the southern
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 22 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
boundary of the RPUD would be designed as a "4-plex Type A" building style (see rendering
below).
4-plex Type A - along southern boundary
I
Similar to depicted Club Marco Units
The petitioner is proposing 1) of such 4-plex Type A buildings.
Along the eastern boundary of the RPUD, the dwellings would be designed as a "4-plex Type B"
building style, similar to the below rendering:
4-plex Type B - along eastern boundary
111 „
•
►1
a Similar to depicted Artesia units
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 23 of 25
Revised: December 12, 2017
One of the drawings presented at the NIM illustrated nine 4-plex Type B building along the east
property line of the RPUD. The colors and finishes of both building types would be similar to
The Moorings at Grey Oaks.
The NIM presentation included two line -of -sight drawings. The first focused on the RPUD's south
buffer, illustrating how the new buildings proposed along this perimeter would be screened from
the homes in Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD by a 15 -foot wide buffer in conjunction with an
existing 15 -foot wide perimeter buffer from within the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD. This
drawing was complimented by others that were presented at the NIM, illustrating the anticipated
buffering along the RPUD's south boundary. Another line -of -site drawing was provided,
illustrating the buffer proposed along the RPUD's east property line. This drawing showed a 15 -
foot wide buffer proposed in the RPUD and a 15 -foot wide buffer in the Marco Shores/Fiddler's
Creek PUD, but it also illustrated the existing green space of the Mulberry Lane right-of-way
located within Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD. These elements, according to the drawing,
would provide for three layers of buffering. The desired vegetated "shield" would be similar to
Marbella Isles along Airport -Pulling Road. All drawings presented at the NIM have been included
in Attachment B.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW:
This project does require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project meets
the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier
County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, a deviation related to the native vegetation
requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.1(2), is being requested.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on December 4, 2017.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of
approval.
Attachments:
A) Proposed Ordinance
B) NIM Materials
C) Correspondence
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 24 of 25 .
Revised: December 12, 2017
PREPARED BY:
TIMMEY FINN, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION
REVIEWED BY:
RAYM0D`/. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
ZONINIVISION- ZONING SERVICES SECTION
MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR
ZONING DIVISION
APPROVED BY:
J ES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
))-30-)-7
DATE
111t,91(-7
DATE
12 1 /I?
DATE
l --Z/Z A // 7
DATE
Tentative Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date February 13, 2018.
PUDZ-PL20150001459 The Antilles Page 25 of 25
Revised: November 21, 2017
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO. 17 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41,
AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING
ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY
FROM A MOBILE HOME (MH) ZONING DISTRICT TO A
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING
DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE ANTILLES RPUD TO
ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 212 MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS OR 138 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY
LOCATED EAST OF SR 951 ON PORT AU PRINCE ROAD, IN SECTION
15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 43.77+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZ-PL20150001459]
WHEREAS, Patrick Vanasse, AICP of RWA Engineering, Inc. representing JMD
Developments & Investments LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change
the zoning classification of the herein described property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 15,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Mobile Home
(MH) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a
43.77+/- acre project to be known as the the Antilles RPUD to allow up to 280 multi -family
dwelling units or 138 single-family dwelling units in accordance with the RPUD Documents,
attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "J" and incorporated herein by reference. The
appropriate zoning atlas map or maps as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the
Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
[16-CPS•01515/1378841/1] 132
Antilles RPUD \PUDZ-PL20150001459
11/17117 1 oft
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of 2017.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS "
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and legality:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
By:
PENNY TAYLOR, Chairman
Attachments: Exhibit A — Permitted Uses
Exhibit B — Development Standards
Exhibit C — Master Plan (seven pages)
Exhibit D — Legal Description
Exhibit E — Deviations
Exhibit F — Developer Commitments
Exhibit G—Typical 50' ROW Section
Exhibit H — Typical Lot
Exhibit I — Deviation #6 — Typical 50' ROW Section — Single Sidewalk
(roadway stub)
Exhibit J — Deviation #6 — Typical 50' ROW Section — Single Sidewalk
(entrance road)
[16 -CPS -01515/1378841/1] 132
Antilles RPUD 1PUDZ-PL20150001459
11/17/17
2of2
EXHIBIT A
List of Permitted Uses
The Antilles Residential Planned Unit Development
Regulations for development of The Antilles Residential Planned Unit Development (APUD) shall
be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Ordinance and applicable sections of the Land
Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of applicable
development order. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then
the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply.
MAXIMUM DENSITY:
There shall be no more than 212 multi -family dwelling units, or 138 single-family dwelling units
permitted on the 143.77 gross acres, resulting in a maximum density of 4.84 dwelling units per
acre.
PERMITTED USES:
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole
or in part, for other than the following:
I. GENERAL PERMITTED USES
Guardhouses, gatehouses, access control structures, clock towers, fences, walls, columns,
decorative hardscaping or architectural embellishments associated with the project's
entrance, features are permitted within the "R" designated area abutting the project's
entrance or within the private roadway as depicted on the PUD Master Plan, and shall have
no required setbacks; however, such structures cannot be located where they create
vehicular stacking or sight distance issues for motorists and pedestrians, and cannot exceed
35 feet in actual height.
II. RESIDENTIAL
A. Principal Uses:
1. Single-family residential, detached;
2. Single-family residential, attached;
3. Duplex and two-family;
4. Townhouse;
5. Multi -family;
6. Temporary Model homes
7. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list
of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals
(`BZA") or Hearing Examiner, as applicable.
Page 1 of 9 11/15/2017 revision The Antilles RPUD
RWA File 010196.04.01 PUDZ-PL20150001459
EXHIBIT A
List of Permitted Uses
The Antilles Residential Planned Unit Development
B. Accessory Uses:
1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted
principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to swimming pools,
spas, screen enclosures, private garages, and other permitted recreational uses.
2. Project sales, construction and administrative offices that may occur in
residential and/or temporary structures.
3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list
of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the BZA or Hearing Examiner,
as applicable.
III. RECREATIONAL AREA
A. Principal Uses:
1. Model Sales Center.
2. Structures intended to provide social and recreational space for the private use
of the residents and their guests, such as a clubhouse, restaurant, and gym.
Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis,
bocce ball, pickle ball and basketball courts, playgrounds, pedestrian/bicycle
pathways, and water features.
4. Passive open space uses and structures, such as but not limited to landscaped
areas, gazebos, park benches and walking trails.
5. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list
of permitted principal uses, as determined by the BZA or Hearing Examiner, as
applicable.
B. Accessory Uses:
1. Passive open space uses and structures, such as but not limited to landscaped
areas, gazebos, park benches and walking trails.
2. Community maintenance areas, maintenance structures and community storage
areas.
Page 2 of 9 11/152017 revision The Antilles RPUD -
RWA File 010196.04.01 PUDZ-PL20150001459
EXHIBIT A
List of Permitted Uses
The Antilles Residential Planned Unit Development
3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list
of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the BZA or Hearing Examiner,
as applicable.
IV. PRESERVE AREA
No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used, in
whole or in part, for other than the following, subject to the issuance of regional, state
and federal permits when required:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Native vegetation preserves
2. Any other principal uses which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list
of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) by the process outlined in the LDC.
B. Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures as per LDC requirements associated with the
permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to:
1. Nature trails and boardwalks, as per LDC requirements.
2. Passive Recreation areas, as per LDC requirements.
3. Water management as allowed by the LDC.
Page 3 of 9 11/15/2017 revision The Antilles RPUD
RWA File 010196.04.01 PUDZ-PL20150001459
EXHIBIT B
Development Standards
The Antilles Residential Planned Unit Development
Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for the land uses within the Antilles RPUD.
Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the
LDC in effect as of the date of avnroval of the site development olan (SDP) or suhdivisinn nlat_
PRINCIPAL
SINGLE -DUPLEX,
TOWNHOUSE
MULTI -FAMILY
RECREATIONAL
STRUCTURES
FAMILY
TWO FAMILY
AREA
DETACHED°
S SINGLE
FAMILY
ATTACHED
MINIMUM LOT
4000 S.F.,500
S.F.
1,600 S.F.
8,000 SF
N/A
AREA
,.F.
PER UNIT
PER UNIT
MINIMUM
FLOOR AREA
1,200 S.F.
1,000 S.F.
1,000 S.F.
1,000 S.F.
N/A
MIN. LOT
WIDTH
40 FEET
35 FEET
16 FEET
80 FEET
N/A
MIN. FRONT
YARD,t,'
15 FEET
15 FEET
15 FEET
15 FEET
15 FEET
MIN, SIDE YARD
5 FEET
0 OR 5 FEET
0 OR 5 FEET
7.5 FEET
y: BH
MIN. REAR
10 FEET from
10 FEET from
10 FEET from
10 FEET from
10 FEET from
YARD
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter Buffer
Perimeter Buffer
Buffer or LME
Buffer or LME
Buffer or LME
or LME
or LME
MIN. DISTANCE
BETWEEN
10 FEET
0 OR 10 FEET
0 OR 10 FEET
15 FEET
sum of the BH
STRUCTURES
MIN. SETBACK
FROM
25 FEET
25 FEET
25 FEET
25 FEET
25 FEET
PRESERVE
MAX. ZONED
BUILDING
35 FEET
35 FEET
35 FEET'
42 FEET3
35 FEET
HEIGHT
MAX.ACTUAL
BUILDING
40 FEET
40 FEET
40 FEET3
45 FEET
40 FEET
HEIGHT
DUPLEX,
ACCESSORY
SINGLE-
FAMILY
TWO FAMILY
& SINGLE
TOWNHOUSE
MULTI -FAMILY
RECREATIONAL
STRUCTURES
DETACHED
FAMILY
AREA
ATTACHED
MIN. FRONT
YARD
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
MIN. SIDE
YARDSI
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
10 FEET
MIN. REAR
0 FEET from
0 FEET from
0 FEET from
0 FEET from
0 FEET from
YARD
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter Buffer
Perimeter Buffer
Buffer or LME
Buffer or LME
Buffer or LME
or LME
or LME
MIN. SETBACK
FROM
10 FEET
10 FEET
10 FEET
10 FEET
10 FEET
PRESERVE
MAX. ZONED
BUILDING
35 FEET
35 FEET
35 FEET'
35 FEET3
35 FEET
HEIGHT
MAX.ACTUAL
BUILDING
40 FEET
40 FEET
40 FEET3
40 FEET°
40 FEET
HEIGHT
S.P.S. = Same as Principal Structure
BH = Building Height (zoned height)
LME = Lake Maintenance Easement
LBE = Landscape Buffer Easement
Page 4 of 9 11/15/2017 revision The Antilles RPUD
RWA File 010196.04.01 PUDZ-PL20150001459
EXHIBIT B
Development Standards
The Antilles Residential Planned Unit Development
1. For multi -family product, the front yard setbacks shall be measured from the back of curb. For all other
unit types, front yard setbacks shall be measured from ROW line. The minimum 15' front yard setback
may be reduced to 12' where the unit has a recessed or side -entry garage. Front -loading garages shall
be set back a minimum of 23 feet from edge of sidewalk.
2. For corner lots, only one front yard setback shall be required. The yard that does not provide vehicle
access shall require a 10 -foot setback.
3. Maximum building height for multi -family units within tracts adjacent to the the eastern and southern
perimeter boundaries, as identified on the PUD Master Plan, shall be limited to 30' zoned height (35'
actual height) and a maximum of two (2) stories.
4. The minimum distance between accessory buildings may be reduced to 0; where attached garages are
provided. However, the principal structures shall maintain a 10' minimum separation.
5. Accessory pool cage setbacks may be reduced to zero feet when attached to a common privacy wall
and may not encroach into a lake maintenance easement (LME) or landscape buffer easement (LB€).
6. LMEs and LBEs will be platted as separate tracts or shown as separate tracts on the SDP.
Page 5 of 9 11/15/2017 revision The Antilles RPUD
RWA File 010196.04.01 PUDZ-PL20150001459
I I
15' �YPE'B'
ZQNIf G:
R
HOME
CyRq
C RR NT LAND
USE' MOBILE
HQMEI
:STORM WATER
A%HARGE POINT
ZONING: AGRICULTURAL
CURRENT LAND USE VACANT
BOUNDARY
I I TPOTENTIAL FUTURE ROADWAY INTERCONNECTION
I25' PRESERVE SETBACK FROM ROAD RIGHT OF WAY
P
PEDESTRIAN/ BIKE - 77
INTERCONNECTION
,
R
RA
. `•,�. 1
R I� r
RIGHT
r \ > s OF
r I WAY
r
RIGHT
OF
Y ' / WAV
75pRoLv
1
O
un
PRESERVE AREAS MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE 10'
/ W*)F TYPE 'N LANDSCAPE BUFFER
REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTIC VEGETATION
RE OVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS
4.46.02 AND 4.06.OS.E.I. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS
NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN
-. I ACCORDANCE WRH LDC SECTION 3.05.07.
I 2 I
I 11 I
L_-_-_----1_-_--.__---- ____-
ENHANCED 1S' TYPE'B'
BUFFER PER CROSS -SEC
ELEVATION BB
ZONING: PUD - FIDDLERS CRK----
EE_ _-_ _ --
CURRENT LAUD USE SINC4E-FAMILY PEPPERTREE ROAD
RESIDENTIAL----�--�
LEGEND
R RESIDENTIAL
RA RECREATIONAL AREA
- TRACT BOUNDARIES
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION ARROWS
ODEVIATIONS LOCATIONS
I
�iP PERTY
B UNDARV
IIh�15' UTILITY EASEMENT
(OR 2694, PG 1581)
ENHANCED 15' TYPE 'B'
LANDSCAPE BUFFER
PEP CROSS-SECTION/ELEVATION AA
IZOI14ING: PUD - FIDDLERS CREEK
'CU RENT LAND USE SINGLE-FAMILY
IRES DENTIAU GOLF COURSE
�* N TE: MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR MULTI -FAMILY
UNITS WITHIN TRACTS ADJACENT TO THE EASTERN
AND SOUTHERN PERIMETER BOUNDARIES, AS
IDENTIFIED ON THE PUD MASTER PLAN, SHALL BE
UMITED TO 30' ZONED HEIGHT (35' ACTUAL
HEIGHT) AND A MAXIMUM OF TWO 2 S
) FORIES.
(SEE SHEET 3 FOR DEVIATIO44> N XHFDULEI
WATER MANAGEMENT LAKE
PROJECT INGRESS/EGRESS
PRESERVE
i
ASEMENTS EXCEPT
COLD AND UNDERLINED
ACATED.
MASTER PLAN NOTES
1. THIS MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT
TO CHANGES ME TO AGENCY REVIEW AND SITE
CONDITIONS.
2. ACREAGE AND THE DESIGN, LOCATIONS AND
CONFIGURATIONS OF THE LAND IMPROVEMENTS ARE
APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO REFINEMENT AT THE TIME
OF SDP OR PANS AND PLAT APPROVAL
3. INTERNAL PRIVATE ROADWAY RIGHT OF WAYS DEPICTED ON
MASTER PLAN ARE CONCEPTUAL.
4. REQUIRED NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVE: 14.00 ACRES
5 PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE
BUFFER REQUIREMENT ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY
AND A PORTION OF THE EASTERN BOUNDARY AFTER EXOTIC
VEGETATION REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS
4MM AND 4.W.OS.E.1. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH
NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE LDC
SECTION 3.05.0].
OPEN SPACE
60% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT WILL BE METTHROUGH
BUFFERS, WATER MANAGEMENTAREA, COMMON AREAS, AND
OPEN SPACE.
MAXIMUM DENSITY
212 MULTIFAMILY UNITS OR 13B SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.
SCHEDULE OF DEVIATIONS
DEVIATION M SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.M.01.N,
'STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS,' WHICH REQUIRES MINIMUM
LOCAL STREET RIGHT -0F -WAY WIDTH OF 60 FEET, TO ALLOW FOR
A!X FOOT RIGHT -OF -WAV MINIMUM WIDTH FOR THE PRIVATE
STREETS INTERNAL TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS
SHOWN ON EXHIBIT G.
DEVIATION Ott SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.06.02.85,
'DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SIGNS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS', WHICH REQUIRES ON -PREMISES DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
TO BE SETBACK A MINIMUM OF IV FROM EDGE OF ROADWAY,
PAVED SURFACE, OR BACK OF CURB, AS AMUCABLE TO ALLOW
A SETBACK OF S' FROM THE EDGE OF A PRIVATE
ROADWAYIDRIVE AISLE
DEVIATION /3 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION S.M." B.3.E
-MODEL HOMES AND SALES CENTERS', VMICH LIMITS
TEMPORARY USE PERMITS FOR MODEL HOMES TO YEARS, TO
ALLOW A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT OF 5 YEARS WITHOUT THE
NEED TO REQUEST APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION.
DEVIATION M SEEKS RELIEF FROM LOC SECTION 4.05.M -G
'PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS'. WHICH REQUIRES
SMALLSCALE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WITHIN MULTI -FAMILY
DEVELOPMENTS TO CALCULATE PARKING AT 53% OF NORMAL
REQUIREMENTS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF DWELLING UNITS ARE
NOT WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE RECREATION FACILITIES AND AT
25% OF NORMAL REQUIREMENTS WHERE THE MAJORDV OF
DWELLING UNITS ARE WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE RECREATION
FACILITIES, TO ALLOW THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE
RECREATKINFACIUTYMBECALCULATEDAT2M HOWEVER,A
MINIMUM OF 2 SPACES EXCLUSIVE OF PARKING SPACES FOR
DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH RECREATIONAL
FACILITY.
OEVWTION 46 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 3.0.07A5,
PRESERVATION STANDARDS WHICH REQUIRES PRESERVE
AREAS TO BE INTERCONNECTED WITHIN THE SITE, TO PERMIT
THE POTENTIAL FUTURE ROADWAY INTERCONNECTION, AS
SHOWN ON THE PUO MASTER PLAN, TO CROSS THE EXISTING
PRESERVE LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE
PUD.
DEVIATION R SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.WMA,
WHICH REQUIRES CONSTRUCTION OF FIVEFOOT WIDE
SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF LOCAL STREETS, TO ALLOW A
SINGLE FIVE-FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE
ENTRANCE ROADWAY AND A SINGLE FIVE-FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROADWAY STUB AS INDICATED ON
THE MASTER PLAN_ THE REMAINDER OF THE SIDEWALKS ON THE
SPINE ROAD WILL MEET LDC SECTION 6.06.02.
SITE SUMMARY
USE
ACREAGE
RESIDENTIAL
126.7
RECREATION AREA
±i,5
LAKE/ WATER MANAGEMENT
±5-0
ACCESS DRIVE/ RIGHT OF WAY
±5,56
PRESERVE
±5.04'
TOTAL
±43.8
SEE DEVIATION Y5
CROSS-SECTION AA
NOTE:
DURING FINAL DESIGN, PLANTING MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION
TECHNIQUES MAY VARY WITH PRIOR CONSENT BY BOTH PARTIES TO
THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT.
�/
BIDG TYPEB
_ -_II l�
I
M1fUEB IP QP
(MW 1pJ
PROF'OGED BUFFER PLAN INGS:
'
SABAL PALMS W]UBLE ROW,/—
STAGGERED HEIGHTS, lY-XI' M
6
ls'fANDSCAFE&IFFER
GREEN BUT(GNWODD TREES,
pNTni ce
DOUBLE ROW, 15' M
-
SW BETNEEH BUFFERG MAY
PR %KYLINE
SEAOIUSTED IF FDUN 3 TO BE
FEASIBLE DURING ENGINEERING
T MAINTENANCE PATH
DESIGN
5
4
I
E%ISTIHGN. WL DIED OAKS
+
f
'F - }
TOREMAINNYS'O.C-
'O.
—
RMLEDSCAPEBUFFER
FlDDLERSCREEK
Ma NG B'WALL a HEDGE
_
-
TOREMAIN'VI
!`
enSTIxG sAau. P.LLMS
, y
dOAK TREES
°
V
_
JI
—
MULBERRY LANE
EAST BUFFER PLAN
TYPICAL 100' SEGMENT
NOTE:
DURING FINAL DESIGN, PLANTING MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION
TECHNIQUES MAY VARY WITH PRIOR CONSENT BY BOTH PARTIES TO
THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT.
ELEVATION AA
W tlFN6Eo MNlING6 N eCNEfn ppCF1NE
-9eGl W1E9i Sx�IX£IED HEI6H5 tf-]y M
- -GREEN &IFTPNVOGGTpFES. +S M
E 0$ & MN nN 1x11 " e wnu.
r�EYGE aunoENsrow FwrtwGs
i. L' 9EN,LINE l
\\� 81WF� /11' Q HM9LbE•��e PoLF CGUN6E(
_ , ry _ 1- i,, R80F &IFFENryG
�y >,
I Ix
wGmmsioF FLFvnnox eLnc TYPFx �� ____� .uez „'--L�FI:i
` VMIESI.-20 -1jI 'tS L.V:DSCME E —E WP.Ow GYPC
L aunSEPuxIKGS
IDEfFXn•s WRIC ENGYEWnOYEAGX � IWN 10) I WiFFA 'f� BYFFE0. �—_ _�—
LMILLEB i FIO
G1FIXEW
C
EAST SIDE BUFFER �
CROSS-SECTION / ELEVATION
NOTE:
DURING FINAL DESIGN, PLANTING MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION
TECHNIQUES MAY VARY WITH PRIOR CONSENT BY BOTH PARTIES TO
THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT.
CROSS.SECTION BB
+++FFFVVV PARES 0 -20'
(MIN 1P)
PROPOSED BUFFER Jv PLANTINGS- - +y JP A 1 >y
$ABM PALNS. DOUBLE ROW
STAGGERED HEIGHTS, IS'- 30' NT
IT LANDSC BUFFER
ANTILLES
GREEN BUTTONWOOD TREES
DOABLE STAGGERED ROW. 15 HT 1
SWALE BETWEEN BUFFERS AMY PROPERTY LINE
BE A=SI'ED IF FOUND TO BE -
FEASIBLE DURING ENGINEERING: f TNPATH
AINTENANCE
IV
SCARE BUFFER
E%ISTING FN:US TREES FIDDLE TO REYAW � � Fp0.ER5 CREEK
EXISTING!' WALL B HEDGE TO REIN N -
E)OSOIIG BABAL RLLL66 FICUS TREES iiln� r ^ I } / 10, ,15,
LARE�
SOUTH BUFFER PLAN
TYPICAL 100' SEGMENT
NOTE:
DURING FINAL DESIGN, PLANTING MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION
TECHNIQUES MAY VARY WITH PRIOR CONSENT BY BOTH PARTIES TO
THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT.
ELEVATION BB
amNxm euDa nwnx;c
-9WLMY191P- L'M
- ITt9l 91119pAR0 i9E0 45' M
ooLel[9o�Ei90 NDN
YIGHl61DE ELEVATION BLDG TVPEA
SWIE6ElW9T �iYtt BE ,{-1 sRtt£ � •I --J^—/�- --.!
�LtF4�i X"hPY �ff tiF I �IR¢ti5v _
FFAiN4 E96X }
JJ UX1�6GFE� tWIRtiGPE 'I v
1 V�1 &IFiFA�1 BIIFiER 10-15 �L ,
YIN. 10' /VIILLES I EWIFRS
gFEN
SOUTH SIDE BUFFER
CROSS-SECTION / ELEVATION
NOTE:
DURING FINAL DESIGN, PLANTING MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION
TECHNIQUES MAY VARY WITH PRIOR CONSENT BY BOTH PARTIES TO
THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT.
EXHIBIT D
Legal Description
The Antilles Residential Planned Unit Development
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE -1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE -1/4) OF
SECTION 15, T'O WNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(Formally known as WOODLAKE, Plat Book 13, Page 116, Public Records of Collier County,
Florida.)
Page 6 of 9 11/15/2017 revision The Antilles RPUD
RWA File 010196.04.01 PUDZ-PL20150001459
EXHIBIT E
List of Deviations
The Antilles Residential Planned Unit Development
Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, "Street System Requirements," which
requires minimum local street right-of-way width of 60 feet, to allow for a 50 -foot right-of-way
minimum width for the private streets internal to the proposed development, as shown on Exhibit
G.
Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC section 5.06.02.B.5, "Development Standards for Signs
within Residential Districts", which requires on -premises directional signs to be setback a
minimum of 10' from edge of roadway, paved surface, or back of curb, as applicable to allow a
setback of 5' from the edge of a private roadway/drive aisle.
Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.3.e "Model Homes and Sales Centers",
which limits temporary use permits for model homes to 3 years, to allow a temporary use permit
of 5 years without the need to request approval of a Conditional Use petition.
Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G "Parking Space Requirements", which
requires small-scale recreational facilities within multi -family developments to calculate parking
at 50% of normal requirements where the majority of dwelling units are not within 300 feet of the
recreation facilities and at 25% of normal requirements where the majority of dwelling units are
within 300 feet of the recreation facilities, to allow the parking requirement for the recreation
facility to be calculated at 25%. However, a minimum of 2 spaces exclusive of parking spaces for
dwelling units shall be provided for each recreational facility.
Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.A.5, Preservation Standards which requires
preserve areas to be interconnected within the site, to permit the potential future roadway
interconnection, as shown on the PUD Master Plan, to cross the existing preserve located along
the northern boundary of the PUD.
Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A, which requires construction of five-foot
wide sidewalks on both sides of local streets, to allow a single five-foot wide sidewalk on the
south side of the entrance roadway and a single five-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of the
roadway stub as indicated on the master plan, The remainder of the sidewalks on the spine road
will meet LDC Section 6.06.02.
Page 7 of 9 11/15/2017 revision The Antilles RPUD
RWA File 010196.04.01 PUDZ-PL20150001459
EXHIBIT F
Development Commitments
The Antilles Residential Planned Unit Development
PUD MONITORING
A. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the
part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create
any liability on the part of the county for issuance of a permit if the applicant fails to obtain
requisite approvals or fulfill obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes
actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.
B. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
C. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until
close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD
commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing
Entity is JMD Developments & Investments, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to
transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy
of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County
Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon
written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the
Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall
provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments
required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the
Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved
of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing
Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments.
TRANSPORTATION:
A. The proposed development is limited to 140 unadjusted two-way PM weekday peak hour
trips consistent with the TIS provided at the time of rezone.
B. A pedestrian/bicycle interconnection to Port Au Prince Road shall be provided, as depicted
on Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
A. Per the previously approved plat 4.04 acres of preserve shall be provided. The current
master plan depicts a preserve area of 5.036 acres. However, an approved deviation allows
a future roadway interconnection to bisect the preserve as long as the minimum preserve
area is maintained excluding the roadway and preserve setback.
Page 8 of 9 11/15/2017 revision The Antilles RPUD
RWA File 010196.04.01 PUDZ-PL20150001459
EXHIBIT F
Development Commitments
The Antilles Residential Planned Unit Development
GENERAL:
A. Any multi -family units constructed in the residential tracts adjacent to the eastern and
southern perimeter boundaries of the PUD, as identified on the PUD Master Plan, shall be
no more than two (2) stories and no greater than 30' zoned height (35' actual height).
B. Eastern and southern perimeter boundaries abutting the Fiddler's Creek PUD shall have
an enhanced 15' Type B landscape buffer, as depicted on pages 4 through 7 of Exhibit C,
PUD Master Plan.
C. As part of the subdivision plat approval for the PUD, the owner shall provide a
watermain stub -out to the southern property line of the PUD, near the north end of Bent
Creek Ct., in a location determined by the Owner and approved by the County. A County
Utility Easement shall be conveyed to County at no cost to the County for the 8"
watermain stub -out and shall be shown on the recorded plat, or recorded by separate
instrument prior to Preliminary Acceptance of utilities. The stub -out shall be sized to
supply fire flow to the PUD under maximum day conditions, as required by Collier
County Design Criteria in the Collier County Water -Sewer District Utilities Standards
Manual, as adopted by Ord. 2004-31, as amended, and as further amended by Resolution
No. 2014-258, or its successor resolution. This stub -out will not be required if the PUD
development is master metered.
Page 9 of 9 11/152017 revision The Antilles RPUD
RWA File 010196.04.01 PUDZ-PL20150001459
50' R.O.W.
25' 25'
VARIES VARIES
(1' FOR MULTI -FAMILY &- VARIES i(1' FOR MULTI -FAMILY &
4' FOR SINGLE FAMILY) VARIES 4' FOR SINGLE FAMILY)
(7' FOR MULTI -FAMILY & I (7' FOR MULTI -FAMILY & h
RESIDENTIAL
TRACT 10' PUE
4' FOR SINGLE FAMILY)
4' FOR SINGLE FAMILYI
i
10'
2rTRAVlEOL'LANE TRAVEL LANE 2
12"
2% 2% 1 TYP.
RESIDENTIAL
10'PUE TRACT
5' SIDEWALK
2' VALLEY GUTTER
2' VALLEY GUTTER
LL2
EXIST GRADE
MIN GRADE 1-1/2" ASPHALTIC
Lu
ELEV VARIES
CONCRETE (TYP.)
Z vi
6" LIMEROCK BASE
> F'
w
z (ifz Z O w z
> V)
�.
g
12" STABILIZED
Q I Z Q��
i
�z
SUBGRADE (TYP.)
::) Q = z z
w w j F Y w
o
V O in a � Z oC
o i m z
TYPICAL ROAD SECTION
z 0 W o o o>-
m
uzyzVmw
0
0
g�o�oJQ=
~zw
cc o
W PDM Z -Z\
t-v�wzwz-Cl
OSQDOtozz
Z F- Z a V Z�w Q
F-�m��
z __jU
w vi
Z>
t.9Z
o
= Lu
Lq
LL2
Z
Lu
0
0 Lu
0
J L
W
> V)
JLU
LU
LULU
_O
p Ln
ZJ
i
�z
z
Q Q
LL,
o
d
H
m
0
0
m
0
40MIN. o
T WIDTHEam Ei
a
S
SIDEVARD
SETBACK
ur-
O
ZDV
fz
�O� pv
S' CONC SIDEWALK ti
2'VAU—GUTTOA---�>
CURB & GUTTER
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
16' MIN. LOT WIDTH
21 i
ENDO.
ENEi
- D lT
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL
TOWNHOUSE
2O DIAMETER
CANOW TREE (TYP.)
2'VALLIV GU�--UR
n0
CNRR A GUI'1ER
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL
DUPLEX & TWO FAMILY
NOTE
THISTWIGRL IAYOUTIS CONCEPTINL IN NATURE
AND IMENDID FORILLUSTMTNE PJRPOSESONLY.
UNIT 1WP LOT DIMENSIONS AND OTHER LOT
DETAILS MAY CHANGE BASED ON 5UR .
ENGINEERING, ERY QUJREMMENTALAND/OR
BUIMIN FOOTRIUIREMENR
BUILDING FOO ONLYTH55HOWNG ENWUEPNAL
AND RFFlECR ONLY THE BUILDING ENVELOPE
TREES
Will BEADCO MODATED ON VARY MT
TREES WILL BE KCOMMODATED ON EACH LOT
ACCORDINGLY.
5' MIN
POTENTIAL LOCATION S' MIN.
SIDE YARD
OTENIIAL LOATION
-
2DDIAMETE0. SIDE YARD
SETBACK
2D DIAMETER
=
CANOPYTREE EIYP.) SETBACK
CANOPY TREE OWY
i
`
)T TINE
S'MIN. p
ire
sloe YARD
f m
SETBACK f
z
SON
r
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL
TOWNHOUSE
2O DIAMETER
CANOW TREE (TYP.)
2'VALLIV GU�--UR
n0
CNRR A GUI'1ER
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL
DUPLEX & TWO FAMILY
NOTE
THISTWIGRL IAYOUTIS CONCEPTINL IN NATURE
AND IMENDID FORILLUSTMTNE PJRPOSESONLY.
UNIT 1WP LOT DIMENSIONS AND OTHER LOT
DETAILS MAY CHANGE BASED ON 5UR .
ENGINEERING, ERY QUJREMMENTALAND/OR
BUIMIN FOOTRIUIREMENR
BUILDING FOO ONLYTH55HOWNG ENWUEPNAL
AND RFFlECR ONLY THE BUILDING ENVELOPE
TREES
Will BEADCO MODATED ON VARY MT
TREES WILL BE KCOMMODATED ON EACH LOT
ACCORDINGLY.
50' R.O.W.
10' PUM_ VARIES TRAVEL LANE+TRAVEL LANE 12
2% 2%
CURB & GU17ER
EXIST GRADE MIN GRADE 1-1/2" ASPHALTIC
ELEV VARIES CONCRETE CTYP.J
CURB & GUTTER
6" LIMEROCK BASE
12" STABILIZED
SUBGRADE (TYP.)
TYPICAL ROAD SECTION
RESIDENTIAL
10'PUE TRACT
5' SIDEWALK
U
Z�
Z w Z
r 2
J o z� Q w
QawZQ�I._
D O g a v z z
a LL w> Q a
U o o m< D z w
Q w w G Ow Cc CC
uzmoS�-o
L�->: Zg
Z_ J v w
goo _ &:D
-zw
f -w vi�F-Uw�
aC UvfLLwQ
�^�0 LL Z—z 0
f-tnF�z VE
O2QZ)01.-0ZZ
z f-Zd UZv,w Q
v_
zwoW`o
-tee:
vLL�r
vN;o
in V
� o
Y
J
r
o
N
�
>Q
7
m
W
0
to V
~
w
~ J
Z
m uj
J
z
W
n. Z
W N
1 C
W Z
O
o
W F-
>
J
J
W
LL, LLI
%
F—N U
Z W
�z
Z<
v)
�dS
Lu Z
o
=0
F- ()f
o
Ln
0-
o
z
W
H
r
GW
V
F
o�
aZ
v_
zwoW`o
-tee:
vLL�r
vN;o
in V
� o
r
o
N
�
m
m
v_
zwoW`o
-tee:
vLL�r
vN;o
in V
� o
50' R.O.W.
VARIES -1 2' rRA1010
VEEL LANE t TRAVEL LANE 2
TYPICAL ROAD SECTION
VARIES
RESIDENTIAL
10' PUE TRACT
S' SIDEWALK
Z F
Z w Z
Z 00
CC
<g�Z<10
MawQQ=ZZ j
0
O w 0
w W j> a w
V O O m a D Z w
OOWZ200K -
0Z=oaN—o
nZ JZUMZg
z- 0a>
gozr-o L7
az zzw
H W
VWVOKL9r,LLOO
°ZW
tD
05Ez0~0ZZ
ZHVz
VlWQ
CURB & GUTTER
EXIST GRADE MIN GRADE
1 .ASPHALTIC
ELEV VARIES
CONCRETE (YR)
CURB & GUTTER
m
m
6" UMEROCK BASE
W
0
12" STABILIZED
N
SUBGRADE ITYP.)
TYPICAL ROAD SECTION
VARIES
RESIDENTIAL
10' PUE TRACT
S' SIDEWALK
Z F
Z w Z
Z 00
CC
<g�Z<10
MawQQ=ZZ j
0
O w 0
w W j> a w
V O O m a D Z w
OOWZ200K -
0Z=oaN—o
nZ JZUMZg
z- 0a>
gozr-o L7
az zzw
H W
VWVOKL9r,LLOO
°ZW
tD
05Ez0~0ZZ
ZHVz
VlWQ
Y
J
Q
r
o
N
�
m
m
W
0
N
Lu
W
F
J
Z
m W
J
Z
ci
W=
Ln
Q)
xz
aZ
wL
O�
o
W
WZ
J _O
W NULj
F—
W
J
0 >
ILI
Z LIJ
0 Z
Q N
O
o
W
=
F
o
O
m
m
L/l
o
�
o
Z
VW
u
iZ
r
o
N
�
m
m
Attachment B
The Antilles Neighborhood Information Meeting
Date: May 10, 2016
Time: 5:30pm
Location: South Regional Library Meeting Room
Patrick Vanasse, Director of Community Development of RWA began the NIM meeting at 5:30pm
Patrick introduced himself and the owner of the property. Patrick went over how the developer builds
quality projects and prides themselves on being good neighbors and good stewards of the community. He
then turned over the mic to Ted with JMD
Ted started by stating what the company name JMD stands for which is Jason Matt & Dennis. Jason, Matt
& Dennis are brothers-in-law who have been working out of the Iowa area for years. Jason has built
residential houses, retail & commercial. Dennis has built residential, commercial, & retail. Dennis is a
farmer by birth and a land steward by trade. He strives to make things work well in neighborhoods and
includes quality in everything he does.
Patrick added — some of you may know Dennis as the Marco Island resident who had a horse in the
Kentucky Derby over the weekend.
One of the things that happened recently was miscommunication btw owner & management re:
landscape buffer. Ted met with Phil from the Fiddler's Creek Homeowners Association this morning about
the trees that were cut and we have the start of a final resolution. We hope to resolve the situation in the
next few weeks.
Project Details:
Located at the end of Port Au Prince Rd, South of the intersection of 951 & 41.
Project is located on approximately 43 acres
Project has had different names over the years
Originally platted as mobile home
Named Stillwater Bay, then Diamond Shores, currently called The Antilles
It was a mobile home park that fell on hard times, dilapidated and in bad shape
Dennis was aware of the opportunity project for sale
Marco resident who loves the area and wants to put in a quality community to be of a benefit to the area
Something compatible with Fiddler's Creek
We had scenarios shown the current condition of the site. The site was well known by law enforcement.
Hopefully when the sheriffs have to visit in the future it's for friendly patrol. Our client likes to do quality
projects and projects he sees as assets to the community.
Patrick showed renderings from the architect
Site will have one central amenity center overlooking a central lake
Units proposed are multifamily flat over flat, 2 story over parking
Max height is 2 stories over parking
The reason for doing these is we wantto provide quality product with higher end finishes at a certain price
point with private elevators
Parking under building allows for less impervious and more greenery as well as amenities
Jim Allen architect — Theme would be Caribbean, soft blues yellows peaches. Each building will have its
own color.
Buildings will be parking below, gives each owner a garage and 1 handicapped space
12 units total with 3 elevators
Each floor unit has its own elevators
Gave us a lot more green space by having the parking under buildings
Height right below 40'
Pitch is to avoid extra 7' of height
Eric Johnson planner for county explained process
This neighborhood information meeting is the V of 3 meetings
Best time for public to engage with the developer, staffs role is to be neutral and review documentation,
staff will make a recommendation at some process of approval or denial
Project will move to CCPC who will make recommendation to BOCC
Ultimate decision will be made by BOCC to rezone from mobile home
Eric offered business card and email address ericiohnson@colliergov.net phone 239-252-2931
Emails will become part of the record included to the Board
Eric can provide LDC standards for mobile home park as well as list of permitted uses for mobile home
park
We are here for a NIM as part of the zoning process as required by the County. We see it as a opportunity
to get to know residents
Mobile home zoning allows up to 7.36 units per acre max density is 317 units
We are asking for a lower density of 6.39 units per acre
We are asking for a maximum of 280 multifamily units or 138 single-family units
Single family homes provide more trips usually larger households with more vehicles that's why we're
asking for less single family than multifamily.
Project will have its own water management system within Collier County Code & Comp Plan and abide
by state & federal rules.
Compared to what is allowed by right with current zoning our project is a much higher quality project and
a decrease in overall trips, decrease in water/sewer demands on county facilities.
Patrick went over the master plan. Access will be on port au prince — controlled access project.
Over 6 acres or preserve which exceeds what's required by code, central lake is existing.
We tried to work with existing conditions onsite.
Project will have a network of sidewalks and pathways common architectural theme, common signage,
amenities for residents, and access controls.
Development standards — when we submit for PUD we have to identify setbacks and other standards.
Ours are consistent with most residential projects. We are asking for multiple product types. Our
engineering submittal includes 2 story over parking. Anything we submit to County is public record.
Q&A
What's the resolution to the trees that were cut? (Multiple Attendees Inquired)
We are going to agree to pay to repair the fence and pay for the removal of the fiscus and we are talking
about the replacement plant. We will keep talking until we figure out which plant we will incorporate in
the required buffer. The trees are going to go in as soon as we find the right trees to replace. (PV)
Are they going to take out the ones they chopped off?
Yes. (PV)
Phil Roman, Fiddler's Creek
Concern — Mistakenly cut trees along the fence line on Mulberry. Concerned about line of sight. Were
all used to looking over and seeing trees. We don't want to look at a wall. We think were going to reach
a big settlement on replacing the trees. We are going to replace the trees as soon as we can find
someone to plant. We are looking for the largest live oak trees we can find to plant on the inside of the
fence line. We're doing it before the developer reaches an agreement. The question is who will pay for
it? The plans I saw showed a layout of buildings all along the perimeter with another inner ring. Have
you had any line of sight studies on mulberry to look over the proposed buffer to a 40 feet buildings?
We will have that prior to engineering. Our intent is to provide enough vegetation buffer after a 3 -year
period while vegetation matures. We are hoping that any buildings are hidden by enough vegetation. So
were working with a landscape architect. The landscape architect is looking to see how this can be done.
We will be going back to you and see if it's something everyone things is a good idea. (PV)
Phil Roman, Fiddler's Creek
It would be very fruitful if that can come back to the residents before the CCPC. If you get the info to
the management company, they will make sure that information gets distributed. Also, you have a
proposed recreation facility. It shows a pool and pickleball courts. I would be concerned with loud
noises and amplified sound after 6pm.
One of the things I want to point out is the location of the recreational area. We located it there
intentionally away from the boundaries and as far from adjacent properties as possible. The separation is
significant. I think your concern about limiting amplified sound —we will look into that. (PV)
Bob Shager, Pres Bent Creek
What are your present setbacks from our boundaries to what your setback will be at?
You're only talking mulberry, there are 3 other communities. Let's not concentrate 100% on mulberry
please talk about all 4 in your answer.
We have setback requirements within our PUD which is measured by our outward boundary. It also
measures the distance between our buildings and the closest buildings. I believe the closest any of our
buildings would be from a residence on the south side is around 80 feet. We are going to have a required
15 -foot buffer on our side and you will have a buffer on your side. We are going to enhance that buffer
and do something greater than code minimum. With regards to the setbacks within the PUD as I
mentioned we have outward boundary, 15 -foot buffer, setback measured from that 15 foot buffer.
Minimum is 10ft. the closest from the boundary would be at least 25 feet. (PV)
Bob Ravel, Mulberry Ln, Fiddler's Creek
What's the average square foot per unit and price per square foot?
The average is 1,600 square foot under air conditioning / 2,000 overall square foot with an average price
point of $425,000 each unit. (Ted)
With regards to finances and every developer wants to make money with their project, this will be at
market rate. One of the reasons for the design is it's our understanding if we can provide a unit that is one
story flat over flat we can get higher price points than a coach home model. We came up with this design
to get higher prices. (PV)
Joe Farinas 479 Bent Creek Way
We loved the back of our lanai is vacant and then a fence & trees. I hear there will be 2 story buildings.
I don't want to see those big buildings. Why aren't we talking about single family homes instead of big
units?
Land prices in Collier county are pretty significant. Our client needs a pretty density to make a project
work. At the price he paid for the land a single family product just doesn't work. We believe what they are
presenting is a much better condition than what you currently have next door. It will really clean up the
area. We hope with this discussion & property landscaping & separation you will enjoy what you see from
your lanai. (PV)
Joe Smith Mulberry Lane
Density in coastal high hazard area is 3 units per acre. The neighboring PUD (Fiddler's Creek) is less than
4 units / acre. This is authorized under current zoning at 7.26 units per acre. Please describe that by
right you are authorized that density. Please explain why you will be at 6.39. that is not zoning by right,
the county commissioners have no legal responsibility or authority to grant you that density. Please
explain the whole density process.
We sat down with staff when we initially started this project. What the gentleman described is when you
go in for a rezone you need to be within the comp plan. The comp plan allows 4 units per acre. Given we
are in a coastal high hazard area and there are evacuation concerns we're at 3 units per acre. If we were
coming in on a property that wasn't zoned mobile home that would be 3 units per acre or less. However,
Collier County respects private property rights. The zoning was in place before the comp plan was in place.
What the comp plan does is finds existing zoning compliant by policy. The Board of County Commissioner's
wanted to make sure they didn't take people's property rights away. They wanted to respect property
rights that's why they put the clause in the comp plan. The property & zoning is grandfathered. If we were
not asking for a rezone we have the ability to put mobile homes or modular prefabricated homes. That
does not require us to put in a rezone. We can go straight to an admin staff review with no public hearing.
We would try and max our site and the max we could get by code right now is 7.26 units per acre. We are
asking for a rezone to ask for more than 4 because there is a policy for grandfathered zoning. We would
like to encourage people to do away with mobile homes and housing that might be too safe with regards
to hurricanes. We would like to encourage people to redevelop those sites. There is a policy that says if
you redevelop this site with conventional housing and demonstrate your project is no more intense than
what the base zoning allows (trips generated, impacts to water, sewer, and parks), then you can ask for
greater than 4 units per acre and no more than 7.26. we are asking for less than 7.26, the comp plan has
found us compliant with that regulation. (PV)
You initiated these units will be 40 feet height. What is the max height permitted in the current PUD?
The max height on the development standards table is 42 ft. (PV)
As far as density, you're asking for a change of zoning. Is there some other method than a change of
zoning — question to Eric Johnson. Is there any way to lock in what is propose to the change of zoning?
Can they do more than they are telling us here if the zoning is changed?
The developer is proposing a RPUD this is going to be a district to itself. The developer proposing land
development standards with mini setbacks, height. If the project is approved whatever is indicated in the
PUD Document. If that is approved that will be what they are restricted to develop (EJ)
Can the PUD document be sent out to everyone? Can the site plan be sent out?
The PUD is a public record everyone can have access to it. Right now, it's not in its final state because we
are still undergoing review. I don't know when the timing is best. We can provide it to the association.
The applications are significant. I don't think we can send everything out but we can send the master plan
and development standards. Hard copies are at the county for everyone to review I believe. (PV)
Jim Robertson, Chairman, Fiddler's Development District #2
Letter sent from district manager regarding opposition to any multilevel multifamily products. We are
going to take that concern to the CCPC and Board of County Commissioners if necessary.
Scott Davis, resident homeowner
Regarding the buffer. Is that something done in the very beginning of the project? The existing mobile
home court, 1 think a lot of people didn't know the mobile home court is there. It was unobtrusive to
us because the 40ft buildings weren't there. If you go to North Naples, you have height density and
downtown you have the old decent sized buildings. Bayshore has small bungalows and Lely has
hundreds of acres with similar types of homes. Other districts say why don't you do it like Naples. This
is not like our neighborhood, its different. It doesn't seem like its similar to the rest of Naples, not
homogenous.
Resident from Mobile Home Park
Lived there 32 years. 1 have concerns about all the traffic & trucks bringing in construction. What is the
impact to our mobile home park?
I'm not a trans expert. Our Traffic Impact Statement demonstrates that our number of trips from this
project will be less than approved / defunct mobile home park. I think your other concern is about
construction trucks. The requirements with regards to how these things occur is not my expertise. You
can look into it with our transportation expert. I can say overall from a trip standpoint once built our Traffic
Impact Statement shows the trips go down. (PV)
We have children.
I understand you want them to be safe and it's important to take precautions. (PV)
Tara from Terry Oaks
I don't understand the technical talks. I bought my home 5.5 years ago. I know overall Fiddler's Creek
has appreciated a lot. I am very concerned about what is going on. We have all worked hard to see an
image of Fiddler's Creek change. I know a lot of us view it as south Naples not east Naples. East Naples
has a negative connotation. I really believe fiddlers creek is more upscale. We are not bringing in
anything upscale as far as restaurants but prices are going up in our community. What is this going to
do to house values? I am hearing $425k, who will pay for this? I have a friend whose mother lives on
the east coast, they want to rent something for 3 months for $1,500. You cannot find something in
Naples to rent for $1,500 seasonally but you can get annual rentals in Fiddler's Creek in Naples. Are the
new owners going to get someone in to lease the units for $700 per month? Simple question is are they
going to stay in it or lease it out?
These are market rate units being sold, just like the units in Fiddler's Creek. If people decide to rent them
or do seasonal rentals, that's not something we control. (PV)
Deer Crossing Resident
The residential density, I have been in real estate for 26 years. Your values could drop if we are seeing
4 story buildings. We're going to lose value on that side of Fiddler's Creek. Why are you doing this?
I'm not an appraiser or expert. We are proposing two stories over parking. I believe someone said four
stories I am correcting that. With regards to values I cannot comment on that, I am not an expert. The
only person who can provide an opinion is an expert appraiser. (PV)
Jack Roney, Mulberry Lane
Earlier you were talking about trees and 3 years, lighting, solutions to prevent lighting. What happens
3 years down the road the trees don't fill out. What's your plan? What guarantees do we have?
With regards to these issues, this is a work in progress. We are working through that. We are here tonight
to address your comments and concerns. I don't know at this point what I can tell you other than we can
give you a clear commitment we are going to work with your HOA to come up with something acceptable.
As soon as we get the proper permits in place we can start a buffer before any construction occurs so we
can have mature trees as soon as possible. (PV)
Sharon Harmon
You are applying for a variance from the County. Does the county have the right to change the setback
lines?
The setbacks apply to the entire community. We are defining what the standards are. Once the PUD is
approved then we set up the zoning requirements. The PUD can be approved the way it is with some
changes. At their discretion, the Board of County Commissioners can ask for changes. Typically to change
any setbacks you must go through a public hearing process again. (PV)
Jen from Fiddlers Creek
Mobile Home density is 7.26 units per acre and someone else said density is 4. What are the legal
ramifications of the density argument?
It's not an easy answer in that a lot of LDC are complicated. Just to clarify the way we calculate density is
the number of units divided by gross acreage. That's the way the code in the comp plan calculates it. We
understand there are other factors like height restrictions, setbacks and separation requirements. Purely
from a density standpoint consistently throughout county the densities are calculated the same.
If the standard in the County is a base of 4 what allows us to ask for 6?
The reason as I explained it is the project had mobile home zoning prior to the laws being created. The
zoning already existed. In regards to property rights, that is grandfathered in; that allows us to ask for
more than the 4. (PV)
Dave Yates, Mulberry HOA VP
Correct a couple of things. 1 have lived in Mulberry 15 years. I've never had a problem with the mobile
homes. I don't understand why we're talking about improving the area. How is that improving the area?
The Mulberry Board of Directors voted that if you're going to change it make it single family homes.
Fiddler's Creek doesn't have any 3 story buildings. What you are proposing is not like Fiddler's Creek.
Surrounding it is 3 communities with single family homes. I don't understand why condos have less
traffic than single family homes. The board voted they would like single family homes.
To clarify, we are not trying to integrate mobile homes. I was saying that park was in significant disrepair.
We have records of law enforcement visits and code enforcement violations. It was a mobile home park
in disrepair. (PV)
When we bought the property, it was listed as mobile homes. Its more profitable now to do what you
are proposing. I have received the number of homes sold in this area, the prices are the highest they
have been in years. Your project, when you speak about it you say in 3 years the trees should be, we
hope this will happen. Once you get in there are no other alternatives for us. We spent a lot of money
on our house and way of life. You destroyed the whole front of Mulberry Lane.
Garry Miller fiddlers Creek
Thank you for hearing our concerns. Possibly if you had a mixed development of some Single family and
some of the 2 units you desire to put in. You could put the single family around the exterior then there
will be no line of sight problems. What do you think of that?
Unfortunately, I can't speak for the developer. That's a decision for them. It will be a financial decision
and one they will make keeping in mind the comments they receive tonight and look for alternatives. (PV)
Geenie, Bent Creek
I've heard a lot about the trees of Mulberry but what about the ones on Bent Creek. Are you planning
on replacing that buffer?
It's my understanding the pruning done along that side was done by the Fiddler's Creek HOA. It's my
understanding that is the proper prunage for Fiscus trees. (Ted)
The fiscus trees on the other side of the fence running along pepper tree to bent creek & whisper trace,
that was performed by CDD. (Bill — Fiddler's Creek HOA)
Doug Smith, Cherry Oaks
The proposed density is either single family homes or multifamily homes. Are you proposing strictly
multifamily?
Right now, our PUD would allow for single family or multifamily. Right now, our PUD allows for multiple
housing types. We currently have designs for multifamily only. The zoning would allow multiple types.
Joe Smith, Mulberry Lane
To Architect - This property has been vacant for 10 — 11 years. The site was deplorable. Most of the
homes were condemned. That's why it has been empty. The hurricane did some damage but there were
a lot of code enforcement issues. This property will be developed, you could have other options, even
Habitat for Humanity. My question to the Architect. If you were to build a SF home above flood
elevation. I would like to see a comparison of what you are proposing now versus a typical sf unit to
compare the line of sight. I would like to see this as an exhibit at the CCPC.
We did look at if we didn't do parking we would have to raise the sight some more. (PV)
Is the preserve area there because of the vegetation?
The preserve is an existing preserve we are going to keep. I don't know all the details form a water
management standpoint. My understanding is if we want to impact that area we would have to go through
a permitting process. My understanding is there would be a way to go through the process if he wanted
but the developer would like to keep the preserve. (PV)
You also have a lake on that site. Even though your density is 7.26 acres. Have you done a by right plan
showing those areas?
We haven't done that, if you like we can show you the existing plat for a mobile home park. They are very
close together. There is no requirement per lot. They have a 10ft separation but it's a lot of mobile home
units and you can get quite a bit of density. (PV)
Joe Cornell Mulberry Lane
Have you taken an impact study of this on the public schools and busses?
One of the requirements of our app is to coordinate with school board. Our understanding is the school
board has reviewed and found this sufficient. (PV)
Terry, Fiddler's Creek
Question to Eric Johnson, what would be the criteria they would look for to recommend SF or MF
homes?
Several different factors such as current zoning. They will look at LDC, Comp Plan, other existing zoning
districts, one of the things is SF throughout, the standard max height is 3 feet, they will look at surrounding
properties. Buffers, setbacks and address those issues. They also base on their experience and other
zoning cases. Typical approvals and what they see elsewhere. All those factors come together for their
recommendation. (PV)
Concerning SF homes, has anyone considered that we do need lower income homes for our workers?
My understanding is that they considered all the options. (PV)
Did they consider different price points?
I believe they did but I am not an appraiser. They are a for profit entity, they are looking for ways to
maximize of their development. (PV)
You're making it very clear to us that the developer has decided is that it's not economically viable to
do single family. What are you going to do if you don't get approval?
That's a decision for the owner / developer. We have several options to look at what can be done to
address concerns. (PV)
Maribel, Resident
You say I know construction is going on. 1 can hear it. During the year, I have lived in Mocking Bird has
been great. There are no concerns about law enforcement I know of as of right now. What are you to
tell me is going to happen in my environment? What's going to happen in these several months as we
speak? When is the construction going to take place?
This is a routine neighborhood meeting. What was presented to you is what we have so far in this process.
(PV)
I don't feel like I have all the information I need to have.
We have business cards here so you can call us or the County. (PV)
The developer should be here answering questions and fighting for his project.
1 live in Bent Creek; those trees were taken down and not pruned.
The Fiddlers Creek Association had the trees pruned. (PV)
I've heard that if the owner can't do what he wants hell sue us. That's not a good attitude to have.
That's not the intent. Ted is here because he wants to help with what's best for the community. (PV)
As a resident of fiddlers, a mobile home park has had good neighbors. I have had no problems. We talk
about mobile homes and there are mobile homes on 41 who are good neighbors. I'm not opposed to
mobile homes.
Are you going to expand the roadway?
The current project is going to do no more trips so there are no plans to expand the roadway. (PV)
w
ENGINEERING
Neighborhood Information Meeting - Antilles RPUD
PUDZ PL20150001459
Date: January 26, 2017
Time: 4:30 pm (Actual start time 4:35 pm)
Location: South Collier Regional Library
8065 Lely Cultural Parkway
Naples, FL 34113
Patrick Vanasse, AICP, Director of Community Development of RWA Inc.
introduced project owner Dennis Albaugh, CEO of DRA Properties and the
project team consisting of Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman Yovanovich
Koester; Dayna Fendrick, RLA of Urban Green Studio; Laura Tefft, Planner of
RWA, Inc; and Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal Planner..
Dennis Albaugh, project owner spoke to the public regarding his absence from
the last neighborhood information meeting. He emphasized his desire to
produce a quality project to enhance the community which he feels is in an
ideal location between Naples and Marco Island. He expressed his desire to be
a good neighbor to Fiddler's Creek and the surround communities and stated
that he had his team go back to the drawing board to revise the development
to address the concerns brought forward at the first neighborhood information
meeting. Mr. Albaugh spoke of his development in Iowa as an example of his
commitment to quality development.
Patrick presented his Powerpoint presentation to describe the project. The
presentation included the following:
• Project location
• Project size - + 43.77 Acres
• Previously approved as Woodlake Mobile Home Park with a density of up
to 7.26 units per acre;
o Total unit potential of 317 units
K:@001\OIOIW04.01 Diamond Shores,"MRezoning\006Neighborhood In rmetion Mceting IM2\MMAOidevitofCoWEO a@017.01-MMEMORANDUM OF
MEETMG.docz
4983 Royal GUlf Circle, Fort Myers Florida 33966 . (239) 597-0575, fax: (239) 597-0578 • www.consult-rwa.com
o Maximum zoned height: 30'
• Previously proposed
0 276 Multi -family units
0 2312-plexes
0 3 stores 0 2 stories over parking
o Maximum MF height: 42'
• Current proposal
0 212 Multi -family units - 4.84 units per acre
0 712-plex
0 13 4-plex Type A
0 19 4-plex Type B
o Maximum height along east and south boundaries: max. 2 -stories,
30zoned height, 35' actual height
o Enhanced buffers east and south boundaries with dense, mature
vegetation
The following is a summary of the comments and questions from the attendees
and answers provide by Patrick Vanasse, Dennis Albaugh, Richard Yovanovich
and Dayna Fendrick.
C. Phil with Peppertree Point in Fiddler's Creek Homeowners Association
stated that he was pleased with the modifications and responsiveness of
the developer. He encouraged support of the project.
Q. Regarding the access to County water, will this require an easement from
Fiddler's Creek?
A. The water connection easement will not be needed from Fiddler's Creek.
Q. What do you anticipate the unit size and pricing to be?
A. The average unit size will be between 1,500 - 2,000 sq. ft. and priced
between $325,000 and $400,000.
Q. What is proposed for sidewalks along Port Au Prince Road?
A. Sidewalks will be within the property boundary and where we abut there
will be a connection to the sidewalk at Port Au Prince Road.
Q. What are the impacts on the schools?
A. There is a process used to determine the impact on schools which has
been filed with the county, this was described by Mr. Vanasse. At this
time we have not received any concerns from the Collier County School
Board.
Q. What is the difference between the 30' zoned height and the 35' actual
height?
K:@001\010196.04.01 Diamond Shores, RPUDRezoning\006Neighborhood Information Mreting IM2WIM Affidavit of Compliance\2019-01-26MEMORANDUM OF
MF.ETING.&oc
4983 Royal Gulf Circle, Fort Myers Florida 33966 . (239) 597-0575, fax: (239) 597-0578 . www.consult-rwa.com
A. The zoned height is measured to the midpoint of the roof and the actual
height is measured to the peak of the roof.
Q. Are there any improvements planned for Port Au Prince Blvd.?
A. At this point no improvements are required or planned for Port Au Prince
Blvd. by the developer.
Q. Are there any plans for a stop light at 951 at Port Au Prince Blvd.?
A. No plans are known about a stop light for that location at this time by the
project team.
Q. Please describe the types of plantings that will be in the enhanced
buffer.
A. The tallest trees will be 28' - 30' with trees along the fence being 15' to
18' along with a double row of staggered palm trees.
Q. Will Fiddler's Creek maintain the plantings within their 15' outside of the
fence?
A. This is to be determined.
Q. Will the new community be gated? If so is it to be guarded as well?
A. There will be a gate with a bar code.
Q. What is the projected time frame for the 1st residents?
A. It will take approximately 8 months for permitting and a few more for
construction.
Q. What is the anticipated elevation?
A. The average elevation is around + 7'.
Q. Will this be constructed in phases?
A. This could be completed in three, possibly four phases with the clubhouse
being built right away.
Q. If the proposed zoning is PUD, can these units be turned into mass rentals?
A. This is very unlikely as they will be sold as individual units and owners would
have to sell to new entity.
Q. At what phase will the buffer be installed?
A. The buffer will be installed at the inception of the project.
Meeting Adjourned at 5:20
Rd 001\010196.04.01 Diamond Shorey RPUD Rezoning\006 Neighborhood lnf ,n�atio� Meeting\NIM 2\NIM Affidavit o(Co.,Ii.nc.@019-01-26 MEMORANDUM OF
MEE'1'INGA.a .
4983 Royal Gulf Circle, Fort Myers Florida 33966 . (239) 597-0575, fax: (239) 597-0578 . w ,consult-rwa.com
The Antilles RPUD
Neighborhood Information Meeting
1/26/2017 at 4:30pm
Introduction
w Presented by Patrick Vanasse, AICP
wCommunity Development Director with RWA, Inc.
w Also in attendance:
w Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal Planner with Collier
County
w Dennis Albaugh, representing JMD Development and
Investments, LLC
w Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Project Attorney
w Laura Tefft, Planner with RWA, Inc.
r�-
The Antilles - project location
Approved Condominium Plat -
- Woodlake Mobile Home Park
uywuma 26 ua f9
-;r m43.77 acres
w236 units
— Historic aerial -redevelopment project
0
Current Zoning - Mobile Home (MH)
By -Right Development Potential
w Units allowed - Mobile Home
or Modular Units
Density allowed - up to 7.26
units per acre
wTotal unit potential 317 units
w Maximum zoned height: 30'
The Antilles: Previously Proposed Site Plan
acenc
•n f
a -
iaNi ' e1H - � i:idl irC- -- �16i1i Iiri k :e p 1 WIC i. 2N1ui
-I noounsc�x
5 Roouas urFx
ii
w276 MF Units
w23 12-plexes
w3 stories - 2 stories
over parking
w Maximum MF
height: 42'
rowrwvwrvcEoan
f F I
�I
acenc
•n f
a -
iaNi ' e1H - � i:idl irC- -- �16i1i Iiri k :e p 1 WIC i. 2N1ui
-I noounsc�x
5 Roouas urFx
ii
w276 MF Units
w23 12-plexes
w3 stories - 2 stories
over parking
w Maximum MF
height: 42'
The Antilles: Revised Site Plan
FlDDI CP K —
w212 MF units
w 7 12-plex
w 13 4-plex Type A
w 19 4-plex Type B
wMaximum height
along east and
south boundaries:
max 2 -stories, 30
F zoned height, 35'
actual height
Enhanced buffers
east and south
boundaries
_Initial Request
Revised Request
PUD rezoning pursued to allow PUD rezoning pursued to allow conventional single -
conventional single-family or multi- family or multi -family homes to be built and allow for
family homes to be built and allow for more design flexibility.
more design flexibility.
Maximum of 280 MF Units - 6.39 units
per acre.
w Maximum MF Height: 42'
The pr ject will have its own water
ma gement system on site and will
be/connected to county utilities
ojJect will be gated and have a
/unified architectural plan & amenities
The project represents a decrease in
units, traffic, water use and sanitary
sewer from what is currently allowed
by right under the underlying mobile
home zoning district.
w Maximum of 212 MF Units - 4.84 units per acre.
Maximum height: for tracts along the east and south
boundaries, capped at 2 -stories, a zoned height of 30'
and actual height of 35'
The project will have its own water management systen
on site and will be connected to county utilities
Project will be gated and have a unified architectural
plan & amenities
The project represents a further decrease in units, traffic
water use and sanitary sewer from what was initially
proposed.
w Enhanced buffers along the east and south boundaries
Units along south boundaries no closer than 40' from
existing walls
— The Antilles -Clubhouse rendering
nom-.. - - =.�—gym_ _
s �•• � � �` � yW
,� : �,
' y _ - ....e. - _ _ _ _ _ _ - � .
w
1; ° � ����
�� �_ _ -,;
-�
.��� -
:. _ _..
�� i
�r�� .-
_ 4-plex Type B -along eastern boundary
Similar to depicted Artesia units
Proposed color/finishes - similar to The
Moorings at Grey Oaks
inced
r
_k.
•
jI I
.d
LOCATION PLAN I VIEW STUDY
w
6
r
.k !
. 4, 4 '.
e
— Line -of -sight: South
35HT. M -
DL 11
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION BLDG. TYPE
7.5 FF. T�Z
IST -"
+3'2WALL & HEDGE
_"'
15' 15
VARIES �ANDSCAP� LANDSCAPE
10'-20'(MIN.10� BUFFER
• BUFFER 40'A5'
IANILLESFIDD
�—
CREEK
PROPOSED BUFFER PLANTINGS:
• ARECA PALMS 15 HT
• SABAL PALMS 15'-25' HT.
• GREEN BUTTONWOOD TREES 15 HT.
LAKE
SOUTH SIDE BUFFER / SECTION - ELEVATION
— Buffer plan view: South
BLDG_T1PEA
VA RES
. - { toy -2V (MIN -10
f I
PROPOSED BUFFER PLANTINGS:_ _ _ _. J_. __ _ -- _/ •� �__... ..... ..._
-�-�o SWALE
GREEN BUTTONWOOD 15-17 HT_ 24' OC TOP OF BERM
__......_._ i-
. 95 LANDSCAPE BUFFER ANTILLES
SABAL PALMS STAGGERED HTS 1530' o . �'• ^r
I
PROPERTY LINE
ARECA PALMS I5'Iffo — .� u
... i %• 7Y � ' '. . ........o f_'.' LANDSCAPE BUFFER
I FIDDLER'S CREEK
-. - .. - .5. Jam' I 1 - �• I
EXIST. WALLS HEDGE
EXIST. SABAL PALMS& FICUS TREES
40'-05
LkKE
SOUTH BUFFER PLAN 1 TYPICAL 100' SEGNIENT
Proposed South Buffer View 1
�, � ,� yy.: s `i . .,
N y s � yy
• ,`Y 6f • f'S• �8j `•4f I�
Y t y y
— Proposed South Buffer View 2
3D VISUAL / VIEW 2
— Proposed South Buffer View 2
F�
�' � t ' ".d' *��
� `� w
.� w .'.�( � .�
� r_
Line -of -sight: East
V HT MA%
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION BLDG. TYPE 8
'e'OTk
,, • /'ASI `' {� f , i41011�
" I WALL & HEDGE
LANDSCAPE 1AN0.9LAPE
PROPOSED PLANTING TO SCREEN ROOFLINE:
LAYERED PLANTINGS OF
ARECA PALMS, 15HT.
• SABAL PALMS W/ STAGGERED HEIGHTS
• GREEN BUTTONWOODE TREES, 15'HT,
EXISTING OAKS & SABAL PALMS
W/ WALL & UNDERSTORY PLANTINGS
VARIES ANTILLES FIDDLER'S MULBERRY LANE BO' ROW
10'-20'(MINAP) CREEK
I
L --o PROPERTY LINE
JRSE L
.4/ 4�
,Mb
GOLPCOURSE
PLANTINGS
EAST SIDE BUFFER / SECTION - ELEVATION
_ Buffer plan view: East
f/
BLDG _-YP-B
VARIES
- I 14Y-20' iMIN.1V)
PROPOSED BUFFER PLANTINGS I ^ iii Il
l
SWALLE
GREEN BUTTONWOOD o.._... 1. ` - .} 1 .. _....... _. n TOP OF BERM
15'-18 HT- 2T OC
./_ �•�.`- ........ ...........a 15' 1 MUSCAPE BUFFER
�_4,-- �__— - f -•- t: S ANTILLES.
SABAL PALMS
STAGGERED HTS 15',W PROPERTY LINE
a,
1 ,
�yyr'- 15 LANDSCAPE BUFFER
ARECA PALM$ o .. .. • L " -y� FIDDLERS CREEK
15'HT
EXIST WALL 8 HEDGE
! ..
I ,
EXIST S,AEAL PALMS
& OAK TREES .
MULBERRY LANE --
I
EAST SIDE BUFFER / PLAN VIEW
Proposed East Buffer View 1
3D VISUAL I VIE",/
L
�� � �
�''� " v
�i r
. � � a,� w` � Ffv � � •1
`' 4 .
,\� •y �• I Ir 1 l'
III j �
I j,• i 1 � i. t 7
��1 •i � .,I1 • 1 • VIII
Yi
i
Nit
Nk
ow:
I
Y -. ilii ♦
The Antilles - Master Plan
PROPERTY, ZONING: AGRICULTURAL W�
BOUNDARY '--� CURRENT LAND USE: VACANT THEE
1
'_6DROA AYEASEMENT 13PROAOWAYFISEMENT /
�RTAU �\ (OR236 PGW) (OR M5 M39]) R
PRINCE DRIVE
LEGEND
UNDISTURBED WETLAND
VEGETATION
RESIDENTIAL
RA
RECREATIONAL AREA
-----
f
PEDESTRIAN/ BIKE
D
A
/
INTERCONNECTION \
�'`
WATER MANAGEMENT LAKE
AA DS ' CAPE
PROJECT INGRESS/EGRESS
p
BUFFER
BUFFER
RA
-
RIGHTO
ZONING:
OF
MOBILE HOME••.
1>
Lq/(Eki
WAY
CURRENT LAND
-
37AO
USE: MOBILE
RIGHT
ROME
ul�az OF
uac. WAY
`... _
L
*
R *R
STORM WATER
T li i
L �/
R
4D' JAKE
MP9J'MENCE
DISCHARGE POINT
EASEMENT
ISO•RO
-
W
/ /
I
*R
-
a— 1
IHERETHE
DT MEET
PUNPNG 1{'
V
BOUNDARY
ENHANCED IT T•PE W
LANDSCAPE BUFFER
PER CROSS SECTION A -A
ZONING: PUO - FIDDLERS CREEK
1 — * R CURRENT LAND USE SINGLE-FAMILY
OI RESIDENTIAL/ GOLF COURSE
— _ I
E -- - - -*NOTEUMITEDTOIOR2-5NRYUNTfSNOTTOIXCEED
ENHANCED IT TYPE'B' LANDSCAPE— ZONING: PUD - FIDDLERS CREEK W ZONED HEGHTfW ACNAL HEIGHT)
BUFFER PER CROSS SECTION A -A CURRENT LAND USE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
•.a,..aw�wew�.a �.,a....vo�w�..reA..+.mm���..w.�.a..
LEGEND
R
RESIDENTIAL
RA
RECREATIONAL AREA
-----
TRACT BOUNDARIES
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION ARROWS
O
DEVIATIONS LOCATIONS
(SEE SHEET_ FOR DENAIION XNEDULU
WATER MANAGEMENT LAKE
PROJECT INGRESS/EGRESS
p
PRESERVE
BOUNDARY
ENHANCED IT T•PE W
LANDSCAPE BUFFER
PER CROSS SECTION A -A
ZONING: PUO - FIDDLERS CREEK
1 — * R CURRENT LAND USE SINGLE-FAMILY
OI RESIDENTIAL/ GOLF COURSE
— _ I
E -- - - -*NOTEUMITEDTOIOR2-5NRYUNTfSNOTTOIXCEED
ENHANCED IT TYPE'B' LANDSCAPE— ZONING: PUD - FIDDLERS CREEK W ZONED HEGHTfW ACNAL HEIGHT)
BUFFER PER CROSS SECTION A -A CURRENT LAND USE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
•.a,..aw�wew�.a �.,a....vo�w�..reA..+.mm���..w.�.a..
What's next?
Resubmittal to County
containing outlined
revisions
w2nd County Review
w Finding of Sufficiency
w Collier County Planning
Commission hearing
wBoard of County
Commissioners hearing
w Contact Info:
wEric Johnson, Principal
Planner
wCollier County 239-252-2931
wPatrick Vanasse,
Community Development
Director
w R WA 239-597-0575
Attachment C
JohnsonEric
From: Anita Ventrelli <aventrelli@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:46 AM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Development - Diamond Shores Mobile Home Park
Begin forwarded message:
From: Anita Ventrelli <aventrelli@me.com>
Date: May 8, 2016 at 9:12:34 AM CDT
To: donnafiala@collier og v.net
Cc: clubandspa@fiddlerscreek.com
Subject: Proposed Development - Diamond Shores Mobile Home Park
Dear Commissioner Fiala,
I don't write to politicians often As a lawyer, I don't have much faith in them as a general
rule. I am hoping this situation will be different. In 2010 when we bought our property in
Fiddler's Creek with an eye towards relocating to Florida, the only downside to the purchase was
the unsightly blight on the horizon caused by Hammock Bay. The highlight was that when we
look out the back of our unit, we can't see anyone's lights or buildings and we feel at peace and
isolated,
We told ourselves that we should not let Hammock Bay being close deter us because, other than
being a completely out of place urban building that is an eyesore in the natural environment„
they could not invade our privacy. That said, when we go beating in the backwaters, seeing
those high rises is a negative that does not fit into the natural landscape.
We. bought believing that the local government would protect the landscape and the environment
and not allow builders to inject anymore developments along that corridor that were different
from what we have at Filler's Creek that was designed with great regard for the natural
landscape. When we received the 'Notice of Public Meeting for the Proposed Development of
the Diamond Shores Mobile Home Park' we were devastated. Having 3 story buildings that
close to hiddler's Creels or in the area at all will turn what is now a lovely area where the existing
developments (bar one) blend into the natural landscape, into something altogether different.
We look forward to seeing that you oppose this development on behalf of those who live in your
district.
Sincerely,
Mario cY Anita Ventrelli
JohnsonEric
From: DANIEL MANN <danielmann2@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 3:54 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: JMD Development Proposal
Dear Mr. Johnson,
We are very concerned about the proposal by JMD Development. Previously they have cut down trees on
CDD property without the CDD informing the abutter,
FIddler's Creek. While this might be the fault of an out of control CDD. The application to change the zoning
would dramatically alter the nature of the Mulberry Row community within Fiddler's Creek. We have no
objection to homes under the current zoning (single family or two story) but three stories above garage space
(four story) is an intrusion on our privacy.
Respectfully,
Daniel andJean Mann
7790 Mulberry Lane
Naples FL 34114
Sent from my iPa
Daniel Mann
Sent from my iPhone
JohnsonEric
From: elyseeadkins@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 1:51 PM
To: JohnsonEric; tjmarshallbooks@gmail.com; elyseeadkins@aol.com
Subject: Meeting of 5/11 - Antilles and Fiddler's Creek
Thank you for the courtesy of your time today on the telephone and updating me on the dialogue of the meeting as I had
to leave at 6:15 pm. The two areas of greatest concern remain: The height of these residential units, meaning the very
tip of the roof line. The next is the number of units that will be approved for permitting. One bullet point on the handout
states either or not being clear what Antilles is applying for. I and surely my neighbors would want the lowest density
possible. ? Can the plan that was on the easel at the meeting be shrunk to 81/2 x 11 and sent on email so that we can
get a complete view and reference point? If so please forward. As stated on the phone, Prior to any approvals I believe
placing 40 foot flagsticks in the ground with a windsock attached as a height marker on the proposed construction site
would provide the visual needed to make a decision. This would enable all of the surrounding homeowners in Fiddlers'
Creek to see if Antilles will create a blight on the landscape. This has been done in another county in the US where it was
required to comply with county building codes prior to approval for permits. Respectfully,
Elysee Marshall, 7794 Mulberry Lane, 34114
JohnsonEric
From: William Bury <WBury@LoneStarinc.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 10:13 AM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: Follow up on Fiddler's Creek 2016_05_12
Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for supporting the adjacent homeowners in the proposed zoning change to support a new planned
development this past Tuesday.
As a follow up can you please send along the additional information that you mentioned?
Very interesting to say the least, you must enjoy your work.
Respectfully,
Bill
William A. Bury, President
LEED®AP BD+C, CPE
Lone Star, Inc.
Comprehensive Building Consulting
P.O. Box 1585 — Marco Island, FL 34146
(239)398-9963
http://www,LoneStarinc.com
COMPREHENSIVE BI_,[1_DING C ONSULT[N€
TO: Eric Johnson, Principal Planner / Collier County Government
CC: Patrick Vanasse, RWA via email — pvanasse@consult-rwa.com
RE: Letter of Opposition - Antilles RPUD Petition
DATE: January 11, 2017
FROM: Nancy & Harold Paton — 7622 Mulberry Lane
Please accept and record into the public record our opposition to the proposed rezoning of the
Antilles petition request from mobile horse usage to multi -family units. Among other concerns,
this will create an increase in density that should not be granted. However, we would be not be
opposed to allowing single family homes to be built on this property if the density remains the
same as the previous use.
Living on Mulberry Lane for the past 14 years, we have watched the beautiful trees that were
planted by Fiddlers Creek Association along the adjoining border grow and become a beautiful
tree lined street. JMD Associates, without permission or regard for the impact to our
neighborhood, destroyed the trees. The damage is irreparable. This is not an act of a potential
"good neighbor" and we fear that the quality of life of the properties bordering this project is
questionable.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at the above address. Thank you for your
time and consideration of our opposition.
JohnsonEric
From:
Phillip Brougham <phillip.brougham@gmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, April 29, 2016 8:34 AM
To:
JohnsonEric
Cc:
AshtonHeidi
Subject:
Proposed Antilles RPUD/Rezone
Eric
I have reviewed most of the documents on file with the County for the planned Antilles Development
(PL20150001459). It is proposed to be built in a tract adjacent to Fiddler's Creek, where I reside. Included in the
documents is a memo dated March 1, 2016 to the applicant from your desk which details questions and comments from
various staff within the County concerning the application. I am sure that you are aware that a NIM is scheduled for
May 10, 2016 at 5:30pm at the South Library and my question is whether a NIM is appropriate until all of the
comments/questions posed in your March 1st memo have been addressed? If the questions have been answered,
where may I access the response and if not, how can a NIM, including a public review of the site plan and application go
forward? Have the comments/direction in your memo been implemented? If not, same question.
Perhaps you can also answer or have answered, this question: I am told that the proposed development must have two
sources of potable water in order to proceed. Currently there is only one line as I understand it. The developer has
requested, through RWA an easement across Pepper Tree Village Association property in Fiddler's Creek in order to
provide that second source and the Village Board has declined that request. Can the development go forward with only
one source/capacity?
You should also be aware, that the community of Fiddler's Creek is very opposed to the approval and construction of any
multi-story/multi-family structures in the Antilles development.
Phil Brougham
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
To: Mr. Eric Johnson,AICP—Collier County Principal Planner
From: Mr. William Bury— Resident of Collier County and Fiddler's Creek
Re: Proposed Re -Development of Stillwater Bay by JMD Development & Investments, LLC
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for making the documents available at the Records Office of our Collier County
offices and its Growth Management Plan for 3 -hours earlier today. We should all have learned a
valuable lesson form the ignorant quote by a soon-to-be former member of congress who stated that
"We have to pass this to find out what's in it."
In reviewing the initial documents submitted to your offices by JMD Development and Investments, LLC
this process started in 2015 with the purchase of the existing Mobile Home Development—Stillwater
Bay from Alfonse and Gretta Bottino amongst others perhaps by Dennis Albaugh, a resident of the state
of Iowa and said owner of JMD. The properties were then called Diamond Shores Phase I and Phase II.
This alone begins the question of just what is the developer intending here. Several subsequent
documents for this Petition # PUDZ — PL— 2015 —1459 — PA indicate that this is not to be a Phased
Development yet what was discovered indicates otherwise. The new name is Antilles but the old plans
reference Diamond Shores —what is the name going to be next year? Is a formal resubmission of all
documents required? The Collier County plans clearly indicate Diamond Shores Phase I and Phase II. In
addition a waiver has been requested for a mobile / model home —sales center to be located on the
property for not 3, but for an extension of 5 -years. So what is the real plan here? Akin to when the
developer started excavation and site clearing operations at sun -up, earlier than 7 a.m. on many
occasions for 6 -days a week over the last few years, will my fellow residents and I be forced to listen to
construction operations for 6 -days a week starting at sun -up for not three but five years? As previously
stated in correspondence it appears that this developer does what he wants to and has no regard for
buffers and vegetation and the tree lines between his newly acquired property and that of his
neighbors.
The tree line, oh how we miss that, which leads to another interesting observation in the documents. If
the petition is approved to rezone the 43.77 acres to allow for not only Single -Family Homes but also
Multi -Family Homes there is an issue with height. In previous documents prepared there has been an
explanation of the Zoned Height versus the Actual Height. Some things to consider in the evaluation of
each are the flood plain that these lands rest in. There is a requirement that any fist level finished floor
be at 7'-0" above the flood plain. So the actual height and zoned heights tabulated are in fact increased
to 49'-0" and 52'-0" above existing grades. Existing Grades is the key to note here in that a mass fill
operation will be required to bring the existing grades up and then, the buildings will rise from there.
Page 1 of 3
Please keep all us neighboring residents and county residents travelling on 951 in the morning or
afternoon rush hours apprised of the next CCPC and BCC meetings and whether this petition /
application will be brought up if it is not rejected once again for inconsistencies with codes. The
Trebilcock traffic study indicated a count of 1,575 as proposed versus 1,397 cars as -is. Already in the
evenings traffic can be backed up from the intersection of 951 and 41 all the way to Fiddler's Creek
Parkway and 951. This development is not going to alleviate that concern.
Thank you for the very professional and impartial manner in which you have handled all of our concerns
to date. We look forward to working with you further to ensure this growth is managed or stabilized to
take into concern environmental and cultural concerns.
Cc: Residents and Boards of Neighboring Communities
Page 3 of 3
TO: Eric Johnson, Principal Planner / Collier County Government
CC: Patrick Vanasse, RWA via email — pvanasse@consult-rwa.com
RE: Letter of Opposition - Antilles RPUD Petition
DATE: January 11, 2017
FROM: Nancy & Harold Paton — 7622 Mulberry Lane
Please accept and record into the public record our opposition to the proposed rezoning of the
Antilles petition request from mobile home usage to multi -family lin its. Among other concerns,
this will create an increase in density that should not be granted. However, we would be not be
opposed to allowing single family homes to be built on this property if the density remains the
same as the previous use.
Living on Mulberry Lane for the past 14 years, we have watched the beautiful trees that were
planted by Fiddlers Creek Association along the adjoining border grow and become a beautiful
tree lined street. JMD Associates, without permission or regard for the impact to our
neighborhood, destroyed the trees. The damage is irreparable. This is not an act of a potential
"good neighbor" and we fear that the quality of life of the properties bordering this project is
questionable.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at the above address. Thank you for your
time and consideration of our opposition.
JohnsonEric
From:
Melissa Smith <mommelissamoo@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, January 12, 2017 6:06 PM
To:
JohnsonEric
Subject:
Antilles RPUD
I will be unable to attend this meeting, but I am interested in being able to view the proposed layout of the
houses and multi family units. Are there amenities included in this neighborhood? What if any green space
and trails are to be included? What are the range of sizes of the proposed units? What is the proposed
beginning sales price? What will the facade facing Collier Blvd look like?
I am neither for nor against this proposal at this time, because there are too many questions left up in the air for
those not able to attend this meeting. I assume there is a way to attach the proposed RPLJD.
I am a contractor in Indiana and know that presenting to absentee home owners without better information
doesn't usually work well.
Thank you again for you time.
Sincerely,
Melissa T. Smith
Pink Hard Hat Construction
I appreciate you following through with these questions.
Melissa Smith
cell- 317-442-3412
home -317-732-4125
JohnsonEric
From: kathi gunzenhaeuser <kgunzl @hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 3:04 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: Development adjacent to Fiddlers Creek
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed multi family, multi level development that is proposed
adjacent to Fiddlers Creek. My husband and I bought our first home in Fiddlers in 1999 at the beginning of the
development because of all the green space in the neighborhoods and in the surrounding areas. We chose this
area in East Naples because of its beauty and undeveloped land. We fear that this proposed development will
not fit in with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and will add to the traffic problems in the area.
Although we are Florida residents, we have gone up north for a few months and are unable to attend the
meeting. Many of our neighbors, also Florida residents have gone north for the summer, and I wonder if the
timing of this public meeting was planned so that there would not be as much opposition to the proposed
project.
Thank you,
Kathleen and Michael Gunzenhaeuser
Sent from my iPad
JohnsonEric
From:
ken.oshea@bankwithunited.com
Sent:
Tuesday, May 03, 2016 10:44 AM
To:
JohnsonEric
Subject:
Fiddler Creek
Good morning Eric,
I understand there is a proposal to develop the 43 acres just outside Fiddlers Creek.
I am a Fiddlers resident and own two homes there now for 10 years .... we love the area and the amazing beauty of the
neighborhood and what the county has done with Collier Blvd down to Marco Island. It is very inviting and only will
enhance the values of our properties in the future.
I am writing to ask that we make sure if the project is approved by the county that the landscaping, buffers, etc ... be in
line with what Fiddlers Creek has done. I would hate to see an eye sore just outside of our neighborhood.
"We have recently received a'Notice of Public Meeting for the Proposed Development of the Diamond Shores Mobile
Home Park'- a 43.77 acre tract adjacent to Bent Creek, Pepper Tree, Majorca, Mulberry Row and Whisper Trace."
I appreciate your time and what you do for all Collier County Residents.
Have a great dayl
Ken
I
UNITED
BANK
* vo"r,�
Ken O'Shea
Senior Vice President
Mortgage Lending
NMLS 185289
(703) 961-2585 Direct
(703) 338-1150 Cell
(703) 563-9191 Fax
14201 Sullyfield Circle, Suite 500
Chantilly, VA. 20151
ken.oshea(ftankwithunited.com
Take advantage of historically low mortgage rates by purchasing a home, refinancing your existing mortgage, or
applying for a home equity loan. Call or email me for more information. Equal Housing Lender I Member FDIC I
Subject to credit approval
When responding to this email, do not include personal information, such as social security number or account number. if
your response requires you to include personal information, email us through the secure Contact Us email link on our
website.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or
opinions presented in this email are solelythose of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
JohnsonEric
From: ken.oshea@bankwithunited.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 11:04 AM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: RE: Fiddler Creek
Thank you Eric.
I am in Washington, DC this month so I thought I would email ... I appreciate your efforts
Ken
LUNITED
BANK
Ken O'Shea
Senior Vice President
Mortgage Lending
NMLS 185289
(703) 961-2585 Direct
(703) 338-1150 Cell
(703) 563-9191 Fax
14201 Sullyfield Circle, Suite 500
Chantilly, VA. 20151
ken.oshea@)bankwithunited.com
Take advantage of historically low mortgage rates by purchasing a home, refinancing your existing mortgage, or
applying for a home equity loan. Call or email me for more information. Equal Housing Lender I Member FDIC I
Subject to credit approval
From: JohnsonEric <Eric1ohnson@co1liergov.net>
To: "ken.oshea@bankwithunited.com" <ken.oshea@bankwithunited.com>
Date: 5/3/2016 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: Fiddler Creek
Ken,
Thank you for email and comments. I will print it and put it into the file. 1 will also include it into the packets that
will be reviewed by the decision makers.
Please be advised that it is staffs role to ensure the project complies with the codes and standards of the Land
Development Code and other applicable regulations. Staff assumes a neutral position.
1 strongly suggest you attend the applicant's Neighborhood Information Meeting, as you'll be able easily
communicate your opinions directly to the developer. I'll be in attendance as well. Feel free to introduce
yourself. Thanks!
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM
Principal Planner
Growth Management Department - Planning & Regulation
Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
phone: 239-252-2931
fax: 239-252-6503
LEED
GREEN CAr County
ASSOCIATE -
From: ken.oshea@bankwithunited.com(mai Ito: ken.oshea@bankwithunited.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 201610:44 AM
To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net>
Subject: Fiddler Creek
Good morning Eric,
I understand there is a proposal to develop the 43 acres just outside Fiddlers Creek.
I am a Fiddlers resident and own two homes there now for 10 years .... we love the area and the amazing beauty of the
neighborhood and what the county has done with Collier Blvd down to Marco Island. It is very inviting and only will
enhance the values of our properties in the future.
I am writing to ask that we make sure if the project is approved by the county that the landscaping, buffers, etc ... be in
line with what Fiddlers Creek has done. I would hate to see an eye sore just outside of our neighborhood.
"We have recently received a'Notice of Public Meeting for the Proposed Development of the Diamond Shores Mobile
Home Park'- a 43.77 acre tract adjacent to Bent Creek, Pepper Tree, Majorca, Mulberry Row and Whisper Trace"
I appreciate your time and what you do for all Collier County Residents.
Have a great day!
Ken
LIUNITED
BANK
Ken O'Shea
Senior Vice President
Mortgage Lending
NMLS 185289
(703) 961-2585 Direct
(703) 338-1150 Cell
(703) 563-9191 Fax
14201 Sullyfield Circle, Suite 500
Chantilly, VA. 20151
ken.osheaCfbankwithunited.com
Take advantage of historically low mortgage rates by purchasing a home, refinancing your existing mortgage,
or applying for a home equity loan. Call or email me for more information. Equal Housing Lender I Member
FDIC I Subject to credit approval
When responding to this email, do not include personal information, such as social security number or account
number. If your response requires you to include personal information, email us through the secure Contact Us email link
on our website.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or
opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
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.
When responding to this email, do not include personal information, such as social security number or account number. If
your response requires you to include personal information, email us through the secure Contact Us email link on our
website.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or
opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
JohnsonEric
From: Kerry Hoffman <khoffman 1212@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 11:33 AM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: Fwd: Diamond Shores Mobile Home Park Proposed Location - No!
Mr. Johnson:
Please see my e-mail below that I sent to Ms. Fiala this morning regarding my opposition to the proposed
Mobile Home Park Site next to Fiddler's Creek.
Thank You.
Kerry Hoffman
9288 Menaggio Court, Unit 101
Naples, FL 34114
Cell #: 609-220-4787
E -Mail: KHoffman1212@email.com
Skype: kerry.hoffman12
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>
Date: Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:24 AM
Subject: RE: Diamond Shores Mobile Home Park Proposed Location - No!
To: Kerry Hoffman <khoffman1212@email.com>
Thank you for your email - Commissioner Fiala values your opinion.
As you know, the Neighborhood Information Meeting on May 10th - 5pm at the South Regional Library has been
scheduled for the community to voice their concerns regarding this project but since many residents are seasonal and
have left for the summer, they are unable to attend. As an alternative to attending the meeting, Commissioner Fiala
suggests that you can express your concerns by emailing the Project Planner in the Growth Management Department;
his name is Eric Johnson and his email address is EricJohnson@CollierGov.net.
Regards,
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:(2391252-6578
MichaelBrc)wnlee@colliergov.net
C A'C'M -11V
Under Florida Law, a-maiL addresses are pubLic records. If you do not want your a-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: Kerry Hoffman[mai!to:khoffmanl212(a)amail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 10:49 AM
To: FialaDonna
Subject: Diamond Shores Mobile Home Park Proposed Location - No!
Dear Ms. Fiala:
I'm writing to advise my concerns and opposition to the proposed Diamond Shores Mobile Home Park site next
to Fiddler's Creek community on Collier Blvd. As you already know, the Fiddler's Creek community has made
a commitment to keeping the natural beauty of nature in our surroundings and keeping the tropical preserve
intact.
I fear that if this proposed mobile home park is allowed to be built, then the county of Collier will lose a
significant place of peace and tranquility for its citizens. Further, it is my understanding that the proposed
builder of this site (JMD Developments & Investments LLC) has already destroyed our trees and landscape
"buffer zone" adjacent to Fiddler's Creek without seeking permission from our community. This should serve
as a warning to you and others that sit on your board that this builder apparently cannot be trusted to do the right
thing.
Therefore, as a full time resident and tax payer of Collier County, I'm asking you and your colleagues to decline
this proposal to build adjacent to Fiddler's Creek. I'm certain there are other locations in the Collier County area
as well as outside that would be better options for this proposed investment.
Sincerely,
Kerry Hoffman
9288 Menaggio Court, Unit 101
Naples, FL 34114
Cell #: 609-220-4787
E -Mail: KHoffman1212@gmail.com
Skype: kerry.hoffmanl2
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.
JohnsonEric
From: Peter Moskos <peter@s-f-concrete.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 11:34 AM
To: JohnsonEric
Cc: 'clubandspa@fiddlerscreek.com'
Subject: FW: Proposed Development Of The Diamond Shores Mobil Home Park
Eric: 5-04-16
Please see below regarding our objections to the above mentioned proposed development
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Peter J & Maria S Moskos Fiddlers Creek 2745 Callista Mar Way Unit It 204 Naples FI 34114.
From: BrownleeMichael [mailto:MichaelBrownlee@colliergov.net] On Behalf Of FialaDonna
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 11:21 AM
To: Peter Moskos
Subject: RE: Proposed Development Of The Diamond Shores Mobil Home Park
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Moskos,
Thank you for your email - Commissioner Fiala values your opinion.
As you know, the Neighborhood Information Meeting on May 10th - 5pm at the South Regional Library has been
scheduled for the community to voice their concerns regarding this project but since many residents are seasonal and
have left for the summer, they are unable to attend. As an alternative to attending the meeting, Commissioner Fiala
suggests that you can express your concerns by emailing the Project Planner in the Growth Management Department;
his name is Eric Johnson and his email address is EricJohnson@CollierGov.net.
Regards,
Michael Brownlee
Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Donna Fiala, District #1
W. Harmon Turner Building - Bldg "F"
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite #303
Naples, FL34112
P:(239)252-8601
F: (239) 252-6578
MichaelBrownlee@collier¢ov.net
Com W
Under Florida Law, a -mail addresses are pubLic records. If you do not want your a-maiL address re Leased in
response to a pubLic records request, do not send eLectronic maiL to this entity. Instead, contact this
office by to Lephone or in writing.
From: Peter Moskos Finailto:oeter(�bs-f-concrete.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 9:54 AM
To: FialaDonna
Cc: 'clubspa@fiddlerscreek.com'; 'maria moskos'
Subject: Proposed Development Of The Diamond Shores Mobil Home Park
County Commissioner Donna Fiala: 5-04-16
From: Peter.l & Maria S Moskos
Fiddlers Creek
2745 Callista Mar Way Unit # 204
Naples Florida 34114
We object & disapprove of the proposed development of 280 multi family dwelling units
per the a mail below.
We respectfully request that the County deny the request for the proposed development.
Peter J & Maria S Moskos.
From: The Club & Spa at Fiddler's Creek[mailto:clubandspaefiddlerscreek.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 4:48 PM
To: Peter Moskos
Subject: Without action, our privacy and elegant, lush surroundings may be compromised- Please read this message
CLUB & SPA NEWS
Attention Homeowners of Fiddler's Creek: Without action, our privacy and
elegant, lush surroundings may be compromised.
We have recently received a'Notice of Public Meeting for the Proposed
Development of the Diamond Shores Mobile Home Park'- a 43.77 acre tract
adjacent to Bent Creek, Pepper Tree, Majorca, Mulberry Row and Whisper
Trace.
The owner, JMD Developments & Investments, LLC, who has previously
destroyed our trees and landscape buffer without permission from anyone at
Fiddler's Creek, has submitted plans to Collier County to construct 280 Multi -
Family Dwelling Units on the property formerly zoned as a mobile home park.
What does this mean to you?
With proposed multi -family units consisting of 3 story buildings over parking,
our views and tropical surroundings here in Fiddler's Creek could be forever
changed. Further, privacy will be affected if multi -story condominium buildings
are allowed to be constructed that close to us. In addition, multi -family
development increases the potential for traffic, noise and safety disturbances
that occur within densely populated areas squeezed into even tighter confines.
Certainly, such development will affect the peaceful tropical preserve we've
come to appreciate and love.
It is therefore urgent that we take a stand and plan to attend this public
meeting to voice our objections on the record before it's too late. Please take
this opportunity to gather together with your neighbors to preserve our
surroundings and protect the privacy and peacefulness of our community by
publicly expressing your disapproval of this development to the County.
In addition, please let County Commissioner Donna Fiala know how you feel
about this proposed development by emailing her at
donnafiala@colliergov.net.
Don't let outsiders affect our aesthetics - preserve your right to maintain the
tropical surroundings of Fiddler's Creek!
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2016
5:30 P.M.
SOUTH COLLIER REGIONAL LIBRARY
8065 LELY CULTURAL PARKWAY, NAPLES, FL 34113
This message was sent to Peter Moskos Gneter@s-f-conerete.conv by Fiddler's Creek
Click here to unsubscribe from further communications
FOR -
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.
JohnsonEric
From:
Elliot Tetenbaum <estetenbaum@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, May 04, 2016 8:18 AM
To:
JohnsonEric
Subject:
JMD Development/ Fiddler's Creek
Sent from my Wad. Mr. Johnson, I am an owner at Fiddler's Creek and am writing to express my opposition to
the proposed development. I am told that the owner, JMD Developments previously destroyed trees and
landscape buffer without permission from Fiddler's Creek. This new project, with 3 story buildings over
parking, will damage views and tropical surroundings, impede privacy, and increase danger from traffic,
congestion, and increased population in tight confines. It will dramatically alter the environment we relied on
upon purchasing our property. Thank you for your consideration, Elliot S Tetenbaum 3745 Montreux Lane
#203 Naples, FL
JohnsonEric
From: Joe Harian <harianjoe 1 @gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 6:11 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: Antilles Rezoning RPUD, Port Au Prince Dr.
Dear Mr. Johnson
I have a house in the Majorca section of Fiddlers and I have some concerns relating to the Rezoning of the
Antilles RPUD at the east end of Port An Prince Drive in Section 15,Township 51 South, Range 26 East Collier
County.
I feel that the proposal by the developer is not consistent with the existing zoning and the properties that have
been built both abutting the property and in the area off of Colier Boulevard. Presently the residential
neighborhoods are either, one story homes or a maximum of two story condominium building's.
I believe that one of the options that the developer is proposing is a Multi Family dwelling unit that is a 3 story
building on top of an above grade parking garage. This would make the height of the building from 48' to 60"
depending on the roof structure (flat or sloped). The significant height of these proposed 4 story buildings are
not consistent with the neighboring developments . In addition, the tall height of the buildings would be visible
from the surrounding neighborhoods and take away from the present aesthetics of the area. When I bought my
home in Fiddlers Creek I was relying that the Port An Prince property would remain as it was initially zoned as
Mobile Home/Modular Home District that would not allow a building over one - two stories above grade.
I also am concerned that the height of the buildings will negatively affect the value of the homes and
condominiums in Fiddlers Creek that are near to the development due to the large scale and height.
I will be out of state and will not be able to attend the Neighborhood Information meeting that is to be held
MaylOth concerning this Rezoning request and I do not believe that the present Rezoning proposal from the
developer should be approved by Colier County. I would like to see the development move forward but at a
height limitation of two stories above grade.
Thank you for taking my comments into consideration and feel free to pass my e-mail along to any Colier
County Planning and Zoning staff that are involved in this Rezoning proposal
Sincerely
Joe & Wendy Harian
8568 Majorca Lane
Naples, Florida 34114
(614)-296-8439
Johnsorl
From: LaBelle, Brett <brett.labelle@crowehorwath.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:49 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: JMD Development proposal for 280 multi -family dwelling units proposal
Mr. Johnson,
Please oppose this proposal. I do not believe it is in the best interests of the community. It will add too much density and
congestion as well as be bad for the aesthetics of the area.
Thanks,
Brett LaBelle
3695 Montreux #202
Naples, FL 34114
This email message, including attachments, is from Crowe Horwath LLP and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the
Intended recipient of this message, you may not make any use of, or rely in any way on, this information, and you should destroy this message and
notify the sender by reply email. Any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions in any applicable agreement or
contractual obligation. Any legally binding obligation must be reduced to a separate writing executed by all parties, and this email does not constitute a
contract or other legally binding obligation. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my
firm must not be understood by you as given or endorsed by the firm. Any tax advice expressed in this communication by Crowe Honvath LLP should
not be construed as a formal tax opinion unless expressly stated.
JohnsonEric
From: Dale Kramer <edengate@me.com>
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 8:07 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: 280 Multi -Family Dwelling Units planned by JMD Developments &
Investments adjacent to Fiddler's Creek
Dear Eric,
As an owner of a single family home on Pepper Tree Way within the Fiddler's Creek community, I want to
voice my concern regarding the future development of the adjacent property formerly known as Diamond
Shores Mobile Home Park.
The blatant disregard for the recent demolition of the trees along our border with the proposed development
only heightens my concern. Apparently JMD Developments did not bother to perform the necessary due
diligence before instructing a crew to destroy our trees. Perhaps they felt it would be easier to ask for
forgiveness rather than permission to proceed with the project.
I can appreciate future development and the resulting tax revenue it provides to the county of Collier, but as a
former member of a zoning board of appeals in New York state, it can be very difficult to correct issues after
buildings are erected.
We purchased our home at Fiddler's Creek because there were strict building codes and a sense of order to the
overall development of the area. In my opinion, it would be a shame to compromise those well developed
guidelines that have existed for many years.
I would appreciate a reconsideration of the proposed development and suggest something that might be more
conducive for the area under question.
Thanks so much for your department's consideration in this matter.
I am currently traveling abroad and will not be in attendance for the public hearing on May 10th.
Dale E. Kramer
8594 Pepper Tree Way
Naples, Florida
JohnsonEric
From: Susan Kramer <kramesd@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 8:07 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: Objection to the Planned Development Adjacent to Fiddler's Creek
Dear Eric,
Please help to STOP the construction of the 280 Multi -Family Dwelling Units planned by JMD Developments
& Investments adjacent to Fiddler's Creek!!!!
As a property owner on Pepper Tree Way, this would affect me directly. I chose Fiddler's Creek for our quiet
atmosphere and natural surroundings but feel that multi-level buildings over looking my neighborhood would
spoil this. I am concerned about the noise level and number of people added to the area that a multi-level set of
buildings would bring. Single-family dwellings in keeping with the neighboring communities is my hope for
this location.
Also, JMD Developments & Investments destroyed the natural tree and vegetation barrier at their property line
with Fiddler's Creek. This action leaves me with the expectation that they will build something "ugly" if
allowed.
I am in New York now for the summer and therefore unable to attend the public meeting so am writing to you
for help.
I object wholeheartedly to this development.
Susan Kramer
8594 Pepper Tree Way
Naples, FL 34114
JohnsonEric
From:
DU Pritchard <djpritchard712@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Monday, May 09, 2016 11:40 AM
To:
JohnsonEric
Subject:
Proposed 280 unit buildings by JMD Development and Investments LLC
Mr Johnson
We are residents on Mulberry Lane in Fiddler's Creek near the proposed rezoning of land from mobile
residences to the 3 story buildings with a parking level beneath the units. We object to this rezoning and to the
removal of the trees that have already occurred without approval. As full time residents of Naples we view this
area each and every time we drive or walk down Mulberry Row. Currently Mulberry Row is a peaceful
community with no disturbances. The entire block is very private and serene. Adding multi -story condominium
buildings within close proximity of our street would significantly change our surroundings forever. The
additional traffic, noise and safety disturbances from a development that would be very densely populated is in
our opinion "unacceptable" for this community. We very much want to protect our privacy and preserve our
current surroundings as well as the peacefulness of our community.
We understand that there is a scheduled meeting on May 10 for the community to voice their concerns
regarding the subject project. As we are not able to attend the meeting this Tuesday please take note of our
"extreme" disapproval of this development.
Thank you,
David and Janine Pritchard
7630 Mulberry Ln
Naples, FL 34114
248-594-9793
WHISPER TRACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
c/o 4670 Cardinal Way, Suite #302
Naples, FL 34112
May 7, 2016
Mr. Eric Johnson
Project Planner
Collier County Growth Management Department
EricJohnson@CollierGov.net.
Re: Opposition to Rezoning Request
Antiles RPVD
PUDZPL20150001459
Dear Mr. Johnson:
As President of Whisper Trace Condominium Association Board of Directors and on behalf of all
of our 132 condominium units located in Fiddler's Creek, I am writing you to express our deep
concern about the intentions of the JMD Developments & Investments' rezoning application for the
property at the east end of Port Au Prince Drive and adjacent to our Whisper Trace Condominium
Association property.
It is our understanding the rezoning request includes a proposal to construct up to 280 multi -family
dwelling units in buildings of up to three stories in height above an additional parking level. This
is on land presently zoned for low level, from a height standpoint, mobile homes. While no one
objects to single family housing on this site with proper screening, such heights required by multi-
familyhousing would not be inkeeping with the surrounding neighborhoods and would be a visual
eyesore to all of us with adjacencies to the property.
Our Fiddler's Creek property and all its villages represent an enormous investment on behalf of the
Developer and all of us who invested in this extraordinary upscale property. These are our homes
whose valuations would be impacted negatively by the intrusion of such a nonconforming use.
Most of us are Florida residents but many will have left for the summer so most will not be able to
attend the May 10 meeting to personally voice these concerns.
In summary, we vigorously oppose the multi -family rezoning request for the subject property. If,
however, Collier County does, in fact, approve the rezoning request, then, in that event, we would
respectfully request that such approval be conditioned with a severe height limitation for the
proposed residences to match all of the surrounding and adjacent dwellings.
Respectfully,
�rDddaviidd L. 1t. Campbell, President
Whisper Trace Condominium Association
8375 Whisper Trace Lane #201
Naples, FL 34114
JohnsonEric
From: Juderad <iuderad3003@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 8:39 AM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: JMD Development
Sent from my Whone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Juderad <iuderad3003@comcast.net>
Date: April 29, 2016 at 9:23:25 AM EDT
To: "donnafiala@colliereov.net" <donnafiala@collier og v.net>
Subject: Diamond Shores Development
Please support us in our request to DENY this Diamond Shores development. The density and
towering aspect of this plan will destroy the peaceful and safe environment of this area.
This project will bring the nightmare of the current overdevelopment of our beloved Collier
County right to our doorsteps.
Thank you for your help,
Judith Radecki
Fiddlers Creek
763 232 5930
Sent from my iPhone
JohnsonEric
From: William Bury<WBury@LoneStarinc.com>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 3:03 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: Follow up regarding Antilles impact meeting 2016_05_10-13
Mr. Johnson,
As a follow up to the correspondence from earlier this week I'd like to add some further comments and concerns.
First, one of the things about the Fiddler's Creek community is the lack of light pollution.
Logic would suggest that a three story building will require street lighting and building facade lighting that along with the
residence lighting will be what we will be seeing in -lieu -of stars at night.
Second, is that of all the comments from the Owner's Rep and Planner the other evening to state that in order to make
their project work, residential single-family homes are not feasible to their business model.
That is the reason we have codes and guidelines, to protect developers from making their numbers work at the expense
of others.
Using his logic if he were to have purchased a property half the size then he would have to make the buildings 5, 6 or 7
stories.
This project is in my opinion, not good for the surrounding community and people as a whole.
If as stated this millionaire or billionaire is so concerned about doing good then why doesn't he make the property into
an Eagle sanctuary or bring some of his treasured thoroughbreds down and build some barns and a track?
There are restrictions on building in his Hideaway Beach residences and there are restrictions here and as a property
owner and resident this rezoning is not in the best interest of our community.
Have an enjoyable weekend Sir.
Very Respectfully,
Bill
William A. Bury, President
LEED®AP BD+C, CPE
Lone Star, Inc.
Comprehensive Building Consulting
P.O. Box 1585 — Marco Island, FL 34146
(239)398-9963
http://www.LoneStarinc.com
LONE STAR
COMPREHENSIVE BUILDING CONSULTING
JohnsonEric
From: Rosemary Albert <rosemary.l.albert@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 2:07 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: Fwd: 280 Multi -Family Units
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RosemaryAlbert<rosemary.l.albert@pmail.com>
Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016
Subject: 280 Multi -Family Units
To: "donnafiala@collier og vnet" <donnafiala@collier og v.net>
Dear Mr. Johnson,
We received notice of proposed development of Diamond Shores Mobile Home Park adjacent to Fiddler's
Creek. If a 280 Multi -Family Dwelling Units are allowed to be built, our privacy, view, and tropical
surroundings will forever be compromised. In addition there will be an increase in traffic, noise and safety
disturbance which may occur in a crowded area. We want very much to preserve the tropical surroundings that
brought us to Florida in the first place.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rosemary Albert
7649 Mulberry Lane
Naples, Florida 34114
JohnsonEric
From: David Culton <daculton@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 2:21 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: JMD Developments and Investments, LLC ("JMD"), the developer of the
proposed Antilles RPUD (formerly Diamond Shores trailer park)
Eric,
I am writing to express my opposition to the subject development abutting Fiddlers Creek. My opposition is
based upon the following:
1. Population density. The area has a great deal of planned and in -progress development. More
development and decreasing "green space" is a concern.
2. Possible impact to Fiddlers Creek property values.
3. Traffic
Please consider my input when advising on this important issue.
David Culton
Fiddlers Creek resident
JohnsonEric
From: gAR <pandgnaples@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 5:54 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: JMD Developement
Eric,
I am a resident in Fiddlers Creek, and live in the Menaggio community.
I am opposed to the new construction plans by JMD Developments plan to build 3 story condos adjacent to Fiddlers
Creek.
Also, if their contractors devastated our landscape barrier, then why aren't they required to replace it?
Sincerely,
Gary Gondek
9317 Menaggio Ct.
Unit 201
Naples, FI. 34114
JohnsonEric
From:
Peter Burke <mmpbb@aol.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:26 AM
To:
JohnsonEric
Subject:
Fiddlers Creek/ JMD Development
Dear Mr. Johnson,
As a resident of Fiddlers Creek I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed construction by JMD Development
next to Fiddlers Creek. I concur with the objections brought to the recent meeting regarding the proposed development.
Peter and Andrea Burke
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
TO: Eric Johnson, Principal Planner / Collier County Government
RE: Letter of Opposition - Antilles RPUD Petition
DATE: May 18, 2016
FROM: Nancy & Harold Paton — 7622 Mulberry Lane
Please accept and record into the public record our opposition to the proposed rezoning of the
Antilles petition request from mobile home usage to multi -family units. Among other concerns,
this will create an Increase in density that should not be granted. However, we would be not be
opposed to allowing single family homes to be built on this property if the density remains the
same as the previous use.
Living on Mulberry Lane for the past 14 years, we have watched the beautiful trees that were
planted by Fiddlers Creek Association along the adjoining border grow and become a beautiful
tree lined street. JMD Associates, without permission or regard for the impact to our
neighborhood, destroyed the trees. The damage is irreparable. This is not an act of a potential
"good neighbor" and we fear that the quality of life of the properties bordering this project is
questionable.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at the above address. Thank you for
your time and consideration of our opposition.
JohnsonEric
From:
Florence Purcell <fhpurcell@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, May 18, 2016 5:53 PM
To:
JohnsonEric
Subject:
JMD Development and Investors LLC
I would like to express my disapproval regarding the application by the above developer for re -zoning property
adjacent to Fiddlers Creek from a mobile park to a multi-level 3 story building comprising 280 units.
My concerns range from traffic congestion, noise, potential lowering of property values as well as mistrust of a
developer that has already violated the landscape of Fiddlers Creek.
Respectfully,
Florence Purcell
3965 Deer Crossing Court #203
Naples, Fl
JohnsonEric
From: Bob <bore1940@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 1:38 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: Antilles RPUD (Diamond Shores Mobile Home Park)
> Dear Mr. Eric Johnson
> Principal Planner
> Collier Country Growth Management Department
> My wife and I are full time residents living in Fiddlers Creek adjacent to the proposed Antilles RPUD,
(formally Diamond Shores trailer park) Project.
> The developer for this property is asking that the property be rezoned in order to construct a multi -building,
multi -family complex called The Antilles. The Antilles, if developed, will consist of 280 units in multiple 3
story buildings (2 level housing over parking) totaling 40 feet in height.
> If the rezoning is approved, we believe it will have an adverse affect on property values because of the
obtrusive view due to the number and height of the buildings shown in the Developer's rendering. One would
also expect increased traffic, noise, and safety concerns. We are quite concerned and do not understand how
Collier County can absorb any more growth especially in an area, that in our view, is' near its saturation point.
> Therefore, we urge you to strongly voice your objection to the developer's proposed plans for this site. Help
us maintain and preserve the beautiful surroundings in this area of Collier County.
> Please add this correspondence to the package of documents that the Collier Commissioners will consider
when reviewing the Developer's application.
> Thanking you in advance for your support.
> Bob & Carol Rendine
> 8463 Bent Creek Way
> Naples, F134114
Johnsoil
From:
Buron, Joe <Joe.Buron@dsm.i
Sent:
Thursday, May 19, 2016 8:48 AM
To:
JohnsonEric
Subject:
JMD Project at Fiddlers Creek
Mr. Johnson,
I am in opposition of the proposed JMD project near Fiddlers Creek. I have owned a condominium in Hawk's Nest
(Fiddlers creek) since 2004 and have appreciated the sensitivity to nature, the preserves and natural beauty in the
area. This is the reason I bought there versus other places. I believe that this project will be disruptive to nature, the
view, and certainly to other homeowners in the area. With 280 new units comes construction, more traffic and stress
on county services such as fire, police, water and schools. I don't see the need for this type of project at this location,
especially since Fiddlers Creek, as a planned community, has a tremendous amount of growth planned from within. I
urge the committee to carefully review this application and consider the impact on longer term residents and owners
in the area. Thanks.
Joe Buron
4705 Hawks Nest Way #202
Naples, Florida, 34114
Joe Boron IGeneral Manager -Food and Beverage, North America I DSM Nutritional Products I Human Nutrition 3 Health 145 Waterview
Blvd, Parsippany, New Jersey, 070541 T -973-257-8063 1 M -410-504-7375 1 Joe.Buron@dsm.com
�fortitech aDSM„premixes
DISCLAIMER:
This e-mail is for the intended recipient only.
If you have received it by mistake please tat us know by reply and then delete it from your system; access, disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on any of it
by anyone else is prohibited.
If you as intended recipient have received this e-mail Incorrectly, please notify the sender (via e-mail) immediately.
JohnsonEric
From: George DeBakey <gdebakey@ap-networks.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 11:03 AM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: A request from a voice of reason
Dear Mr. Johnson,
My name is George DeBakey and I am a home owner in Fiddlers Creek at 7770 Mulberry Row. I thank you in advance for
taking a couple of minutes to read my email here to you.
I know you have probably been getting a lot of mail regarding the topic of the proposed development of Antilles RPUD
by JMD Developments and Investments, LLC ("JMD"). I ask that you read my email as a reasonable opinion on the topic as my
home is adjacent— facing the lot in question. I work and participate in the free enterprise system that we as citizens of this
great nation are privileged with, and as such I do not expect JMD to abandon their plans to develop their land in a fashion that
creates most value to them, and ideally value to the neighborhood and society which is also a responsibility of every reputable
company and brand. With that I would like to make a few points:
1. If the development is made out of nice single family homes —then I have no objection at all. I simply ask that they
reestablish the vegetation and tree line that they destroyed behind the fence facing my home. I also ask the county to
conduct a traffic study which might dictate an additional traffic light.
2. If JMD's land goes out all the way to Collier Blvd (which I am not sure of) or if they have the ability to purchase
adjacent lots to get to Collier Blvd — the lot just North of the Main entrance to Fiddlers Creek, then here is a very
worthy and value adding proposal: An upscale shop/live development that looks in style similar to Venetian Village
(open mall with little boutiques, shops, restaurants, etc. on the ground floor and some live units on the 2nd floor
while maintaining a wide tree line between Fiddlers Creek fence and their buildings (at least 60 ft) will add a lot of
value. I think that will be very very profitable to JMD, and might enhance the appeal of the whole Collier Blvd access
to Marco Island. It will probably also be good for Fiddlers Creek as long as it is done with high quality. All, I ask for is
that it maintains the privacy and solitude of my home with a 60 ft tree line and that traffic is managed.
3. Anything short of the above two options would mean they either destroyed value in the general area (and the value
of my home), or they left money on the table by not developing a better product.
My thoughts above allow for the development and monetization of the lot owned by JMD, but in a fashion where everyone
wins and not in a fashion that destroys the value of adjacent property. I kindly ask that you take my ideas into consideration
when casting yourjudgment on this development.
Regards,
George DeBakey
7770 Mulberry Row
Naples, FL 34114
JohnsonEric
From: William Bury <WBury@LoneStarinc.com>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:24 AM
To: JohnsonEric
Cc: jtibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com; Bent Creek Board
Subject: RE: Follow up regarding Antilles impact meeting on 2016_05_10 and
impacts to date 2016_05_20
Importance: High
Mr. Johnson,
Trust you received the PDF of the aforementioned PowerPoint.
Copied is my neighbor, Mrs. Judy Tibbs who has proof that the developer did In fact use heavy equipment to take down
the trees along the South fence of the buffer as well as the East fence.
When I brought it up at the meeting on the 191h, the Developer / Owner's Representative, said that it was our CDD that
"pruned the trees", but that is not the case.
Counsel is being sought on how to rectify this situation and if the rumor is correct that the Representative of the Owner
or the Owner said "It's my land and if they don't like it, sue me", may come true.
This is not good.
We are all very frustrated at how this is taking place and ask that it be stopped.
That is why we have zoning laws and property rights.
They are both being infringed upon.
Very Respectfully,
Mr. Bury
From: JohnsonEric[mailto:Ericlohnson@colliergov.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:39 PM
To: WBury@LoneStarInc.com
Subject: RE: Follow up regarding Antilles impact meeting 2016_05_10-19
I don't recall. I asked the applicant to give me a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. Thanks!
Eric Johnson
Principal Planner
From: William Bury [mailto:WBurvCcDLoneStarinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:32 PM
To: JohnsonEric <Ericjohnson@colliergov.net>
Subject: RE: Follow up regarding Antilles impact meeting 2016_05_10-19
No, I don't think so Eric.
Thanks again for the follow up.
Hope you are enjoying the start of rainy season and the summer heat.
Do have a question actually, in looking at the PowerPoint from the other evening (obtained elsewhere) it is hard to
discern where the units shown were in relation to the buffers to the South and East and their respective fences.
Respectfully,
RM
William A. Bury, President
LEED®AP BD+C, CPE
Lone Star, Inc.
Comprehensive Building Consulting
P.O. Box 1585 — Marco Island, FL 34146
(239)398-9963
httP://www.LoneStarinc.com
From: JohnsonEric[mailto:Ericlohnson@)colliergov.netl
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:22 PM
To: WBurvCalLoneStarInc.com
Subject: RE: Follow up regarding Antilles impact meeting 2016_05_10-13
Mr. Bury,
I'm going through my email archives. Are you waiting for me to respond to any questions? Just want to follow
up. Thanks!
Eric Johnson
Principal Planner
William A. Bury, President
LEED®AP BD+C, CPE
Lone Star, Inc.
Comprehensive Building Consulting
P.O. Box 1585 — Marco Island, FL 34146
(239)398-9963
http://www.LoneStarinc.com
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. It 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,
2
JohnsonEric
From: Bill Bury <b_bury@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 5:39 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Cc: jtibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com; Bent Creek Board
Subject: FW: Photos Bent Creek Fiddlers Creek - Summary
Importance: High
Eric,
Please see below.
We want this as part of the public record.
We as a community are not at all pleased with this developer.
See the before pies and how they look today.
If you or others from the County would like to visit and review this with us in person on site please let us know.
Thank you again and have a nice weekend.
Respectfully,
Bill
With God All Things Are Possible
8448 Bent Creek, Naples, FL 34114
239-398-9963
-----Original Message -----
From: Judy Tibbs [mailto:jtibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 4:07 PM
To: Bill Bury
Subject: Photos Bent Creek Fiddlers Creek
The photos I have sent prove that the developer did in fact demolish our buffer trees. Our fence is set back I
believe about 6 feet from the property line and then there is a 15 ft buffer. You can see the before and after
pictures of our huge buffer trees. My property is one house in from the fence 8456 Bent Creek Court. You can
check with any neighbor around our lake and they will confirm a backhoe took out the trees. At the meeting it
was stated that CDD took out the trees but Phil the president of the Pepper Tree association has said he is so
sorry he was mistaken. Our trees were gone two months or more before the CDD did their trimming.
Judy Tibbs
Sent from my iPhone=
JohnsonEric
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Eric,
More pics from over the hedge.
Thanks,
Bill
Bill Bury <bbury@yahoo.com>
Friday, May_20, 2016 5:34 PM
JohnsonEric
Bent Creek Board; jtibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com
FW: More trees
From: Judy Tibbs [mailto:jtibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 3:57 PM
To: Bill Bury
Subject: Fwd: More trees
This is the view from Antilles side from one end of Bent Creek's fence to where the trees were not removed at
the beginning of Pepper Tree. Most of our buffer trees were taken out by Antilles developer backhoe. The
demolition went on for days.
The first pictures I sent begin right at 8456 Bent Creek Court. This is a continuation of the photos.
Judy Tibbs
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Charles Tibbs <ctibbs@tibbsteamrealtv.com>
Date: May 11, 2016 at 5:42:53 PM EDT
To: Judy Tibbs <jtibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com>
Subject: Fwd: More trees
Sent from our IPad
Charlie Tibbs
251-942-4778
Ctibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com
Judy Tibbs
Jtibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com
251-942-6223
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Charles Tibbs" <ctibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com>
To: 'Bob Slater" <rslater40@aol.com>, "Bob Rendine" <bore 1940 @ aol.com>, "Kate Tipul"
<kate.tipul@email.com>, "Myron Bechtel' <myron.bechtel@email.com>, "Charles Tibbs"
<ctibbs @ tibb steamrealty. com>
Subject: More trees
Contrast the portion of the fence along Bent Creek end as opposed to the dense vegetation left at
the Pepper Tree end. This was taken about half way between BC and Pepper Tree. It is as if the
thinning stopped and was not done on the pepper Tree side
i
• r
rt
,; ea ��a
t
�jv,
`rtl
-.per
.0.
JohnsonEric
From:
Bill Bury <b_bury@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Friday, May 20, 2016 5:33 PM
To:
JohnsonEric
Cc:
Bent Creek Board; jtibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com
Subject:
FW: Trees behind our fence
Eric,
You can see the clearing.
Thanks,
Bill
From: Judy Tibbs [mailto:jtibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 3:49 PM
To: Bill Bury
Subject: Fwd: Trees behind our fence
Photos from the developer side alongside Bent Creek. You can see huge voids.
Judy
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Charles Tibbs <ctibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com>
Date: May 11, 2016 at 5:41:12 PM EDT
To: Judy Tibbs <jtibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com>
Subject: Fwd: Trees behind our fence
Sent from our IPad
Charlie Tibbs
251-942-4778
Ctibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com
Judy Tibbs
Jtibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com
251-942-6223
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Charles Tibbs" <ctibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com>
To: 'Bob Rendine" <borel940@aol.com>, 'Bob Slater" <rslater40@aol.com>, "Kate Tipul"
<kate.tipul@gmail.com>, "Myron.Bechtel@Gmail.com" <myron.bechtel@gmail.com>,
"Charles Tibbs" <ctibbs@tibbsteamrealty.com>
Subject: Trees behind our fence
These are the trees just inside the fence alongside 8460 Bent Creek Court. The roof is Jerry
Pecha's house. I was about 40feet from the fence. New condos will be very close to us. Trees
were thinned using a front-end loader so lots of trees taken down and severe damage to those that
remain. More photos to come.
�ti
- = fl�4v-
... - _ ...
� .Y • � XN
�,�
h
I�4.
�+,
•.iF'IX
;Aev
JohnsonEric
From:
Karen Starr <kstarr@thayer.org>
Sent:
Wednesday, May 25, 2016 9:22 AM
To:
JohnsonEric
Subject:
Proposed Development by JMD
We are writing in support of the residents of Fiddler's Creek who are opposed to the plans to re -zone
the former trailer park into a multi -family residential community.
Like other homeowners in Fiddler's Creek, we were dismayed when we saw the removal of the
landscape barrier along Mulberry Row, where a close friend recently bought a property that they put
extensive and costly renovations in as they intended to spend winters at Fiddler's Creek.
This lack of regard for Fiddler's Creek residents and the callous destruction of vegetation speak to the
integrity of the developers and their lack of concern for our community and others who will be
affected with increased traffic and demand for county services. They made no attempt to provide
information to the homeowners prior to the removal of landscaping.
The development clearly is meant to maximize profitability for the owners, with little regard to
Fiddler's Creek residents. We are rightfully concerned about protecting our investment. Fiddler's
Creek has shown a remarkable turn around in the past several years and has been considered a top
residential community in Collier County.
Karen W. Starr
Marshall Goldberg
9218 Corfu Court #101
Naples, FL