The URL can be used to link to this page

Commissioner Fiala Ex-Parte Ex parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 iB ARD OF ZONING APPEALS 8.A. ***This item has been continued from the July 10, 2018 BCC meeting.*** This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, granting a parking exemption, to allow off-site parking on a contiguous lot zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-4) and repeal Resolution No. 09-152, relating to a prior parking exemption. The subject property is located between Rosemary Lane and Ridge Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. (PL20170002684) NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM X SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ®e-mails ❑Calls Email & Discussions w/ Muffy Clark-Gill, Staff Reports ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 19.B. This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 99-94, the Pine Ridge Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD), to add 325 multi-family dwelling units as permitted uses in the commercial district in the areas designated on the master plan; by adding development standards for residential structures; by revising Exhibit A, the PUD master plan and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [PL20160002306] (This is a companion to Agenda Item 9.A) NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM X SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails Calls Met w/ Rich Yovanovich, Wayne Arnold & David Genson, mail and emails from the Community, Staff Report Ex parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 CONSENT AGENDA 16.A.15. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Egrets Crossing, Application Number PL20180000399. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings Correspondence I le-mails I 1Calls 16.A.16. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat Kopper's Subdivision, Application Number PL20180001836. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE I (Meetings Correspondence e-mails ❑Calls Ex parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 SUMMARY AGENDA 17.A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-PL20170004446 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the conservation easement described in O.R. Book 3635, Page 3683 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. The subject property is located on the south side of Livingston Woods Lane, just north of the Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill Lane intersection, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ® SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence se-mails ❑Calls Emails & Discussions w/Staff 17.B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-PL20180001141, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in the 10-foot drainage easement on the north side of the property and a portion of the 15-foot drainage easement on the south side of the property, on Lot 35, Collier County Production Park Phase 1-B, as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 7-8 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, located on the west side of Livingston Road, just south of Exchange Avenue in Section 36, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls 17.C. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 85- 83, an ordinance amending No. 85-21, which amended No. 77-48, the Lely Barefoot Beach Planned Unit Development(PUD); by amending Section 10.5.6 maximum building height for Tract Ito increase the height from two habitable floors to three habitable floors; and by providing an effective date. The subject property known as Bayfront Gardens is located south of Bonita Beach Road in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170004421] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ® SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls Staff Report 48 Pr CAP P C ounty STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: MARCH 1, 2018 SUBJECT: PETITION PE-PL20170002684, 3106 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH PARKING EXEMPTION PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS: Applicant Owner: Agent: Sandbanks LLC Frederick E Hood,AICP 700 Old Trail Drive Davidson Engineering, Inc. Naples,FL 34103 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples,FL 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant seeks approval for a Parking Exemption Application (PE)to permit off-site parking for the subject parcel,which is zoned C-4, General Commercial,and allow for parking on an abutting and contiguous parcel directly east of the subject property, which is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family. The parking area is referred to as off-site because it is located on abutting residentially zoned parcels.However,the project area is one contiguous site.The requested PE seeks to repeal the previous parking exemption that was approved under Resolution 2009-152 by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The proposed parking exemption would permit additional parking area for a proposed new retail building at 3106 Tamiami Trail North adjacent to the existing Mr. Tequila restaurant. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consisting of±0.46 acres of land is located at the northeast corner of US-41 Tamiami Trail North and Rosemary Lane, Section 22,Township 49 South,Range 25 East,of Collier County,Florida(See location map on page 2). Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 Page 1 of 9 LOCATION MAP Qjl 1 � az g Q gs � Q m W ( N * a — a F �� Property o lel a Q m "' "t.`:v°" Subject to a I a ®mwg ® e Parking winsu,r,wo Si ' ® a ' Exemption • ® i . ' CI 1i $ , o W TO ., CM 0C 7 8 O _ N coN 0 Anvsiu I`... „\9:,,,x_....._ .....__ - N ,. ... E N S€ g, Z i a ,<...',- o c NIS -c4 VZ i 1 i 4i.k_. a 71 �i h4 '.51sR4if J .a 2 a. , it, ,.,, af NIS+Fi�, kl +stt,i ta 8 •_0 CO NVII IwutuL is *i15•4c.N1TNAA 0 J he COOliim Z W TZ0 eV)j,,:w iL• Jj ti. €r II Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 Page 2 of 9 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The existing retail plaza at 3100 Tamiami Trail North (U.S. 41)will be demolished in favor of a new construction building. The proposed building setback from U.S. 41-Tamiami will be greater than the existing building. The applicant has proposed a new reconfigured parking lot with 98 spaces shown on their proposed concept plan. The applicant states that of the proposed 98 parking spaces,21 parking spaces at the east side of the proposed lot are included in the PE application. They are shown on the concept plan east of the dashed bold line that delineates the lots in the proposed PE area of the site. The additional 21 spaces make up the PE and would be utilized to meet the parking calculations for the proposed concept plan. The project area includes the existing Mr. Tequila restaurant, which will remain at its present location. The concept plan details some proposed site development changes for the restaurant, including relocation of the trash enclosures and a new parking lot configuration for customers. The proposed concept plan drawing has been included as (Attachment A-Conceptual Site Plan). The zoning for the subject property is C-4 General Commercial except for the east portion of the property, which consists of lots 14, 53, and 55 of the Rosemary Heights Addition Subdivision. These three lots are zoned RSF-4 Residential Single-family and are the basis of the PE request (See the zoning map on page 2). A color map that details lots 14, 53, and 55 for the PE request is included as (Attachment B -Parking Exemption Area Map).As stated,the applicant seeks to eliminate and repeal a previous parking exemption from 2009. It is Resolution number 2009-152. There were several commitments and conditions connected to the resolution and it has been included as (Attachment C— BZA Resolution 09-152). The residentially zoned lots, for which the parking exemption is proposed, are currently vacant. The parcels will remain zoned RSF-4 Single-Family Residential. In accordance with Section 4.06.02 of the LDC, the proposed commercial use project must provide a Type B 15-foot buffer for the residentially zoned property to the east. The concept plan submitted by the applicant shows a Type B buffer for residential property to the east.It should be noted that Section 5.03.02.H of the LDC requires the applicant to construct a fence or wall on the commercial property to screen it from the adjacent residential use. The applicant would be required to meet this standard at the time of Site Development Plan review. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North: City of Naples, PD, Planned Development East: RS4, Single-Family Residential South: C-4, General Commercial West: City of Naples, HC, Highway Commercial Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 Page 3 of 9 :„47 P -1 r trl : , ,;,..„..„*... , r .._ ,,,:::.\ _:,INA --- -,,z._•,.4 „ , ..-N . , , - __,_ ,.,,,., : 440-re . x jj , - r Y< '' , ,. t ,t , ,00,1 , .. .„,,,„• . , ,„ « Liti Area to be rt , , ; rteIf, developed �, ., - —it1DGE S — 14 ••* I 2 p 7x , • i mot ,,.,,„ te: ,, .,- .14,„.. _..„... , sr°°- I n 0 `rry ta WrRclyaJul r 'fomr — •xSandbanks Coller County,Florida 3126 TAMIAMI TRL N,NAPLES,FL 34103 ��08130/17 Location Map- -_- u mow GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: The subject property for the requested PE is in the Urban Residential Sub district land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map(PLUM). This land use category is designed to accommodate a variety of residential uses including single-family, multi-family, duplex, mobile home and mixed- use projects. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. The GMP does not address parking exemption requests and the Comprehensive Planning Section leaves this determination to the Zoning Section as part of the LDC review and analysis under Section 4.05.02 K.3 of the code. ANALYSIS: Zoning Review: In accordance with Section 4.05.02.K.3.a(2) of the LDC, anapplicant may seek a parking exemption when off-site parking is requested for land not zoned for commercial use. The Zoning Division has completed a review of parking exemption criteria from Section 4.05.02.K.3.b of the LDC for consideration by the CCPC for a potential recommendation to the BCC, and responses to each criterion is below: Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 Page 4 of 9 • (1) Whether the amount of off-site parking is required by sections 4.05.04 G. and 4.05.09, or is in excess of these requirements. The applicant has proposed off-street parking which exceeds that required by the referenced LDC sections. It is below the excess parking and pavement standards in Section 4.05.04.C. However, the applicant could remove seven parking spaces and provide additional landscape area in an effort to reduce heat island effect and create additional drainage and percolation soil. (2) The distance of the farthest parking space from the facility to be served. The concept plan provided by the applicant(see Attachment A)clearly details the spatial dimensions of the proposed parking exemption area and the concept building. The furthest parking space to the building is approximately 95-100 feet to the nearest entrance of the proposed building. The applicant has proposed a reasonable maximum distance from the building to the farthest parking space. (3) Pedestrian safety if the lots are separated by a collector or arterial roadway. The proposed parking exemption area is not separated by a collector or arterial roadway. A pedestrian would not have to cross an arterial or collector roadway to utilize the PE area. It appears the applicant has eliminated the need for a pedestrian to cross a public right-of-way to access the proposed building from the parking area. (4) Pedestrian and vehicular safety. Based on the proposed design of the parking area by the applicant,there do not appear to be any pedestrian and vehicular safety issues. The concept plan does not indicate internal sidewalks.It should be noted that pavement markings outlining pedestrian walkways may be stipulated during the SDP process. (5) The character and quality of the neighborhood and the future development of surrounding properties. The Zoning Division does not believe that the proposed parking exemption would negatively affect the character and quality of the neighborhood. It does not appear that the future development of surrounding properties would be negatively affected. A wall or fence and 15-foot wide buffer is required along the residential property boundaries to the east. (6) Potential parking problems for neighboring properties. The proposed parking exemption does not appear to present potential parking problems for neighboring residential properties. As it relates to parking availability only, the proposed concept plan appears to ameliorate the existing conditions and provide more parking at the project location site. Additionally, the proposed reconfiguration and new building parking will provide vehicular access to both Rosemary Lane and Ridge Street which improves the parking access for the restaurant and the concept building. Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 Page 5 of 9 (7) Whether the internal traffic flow is required to leave the site to reach the proposed off- site parking. As stated,the proposed parking exemption is off-site in terms of the RSF-4 zone district. Internal traffic flow for parking is not required to leave the site. (8) Whether vehicular access shall be from or onto residential streets. None of the proposed access to the proposed conceptual building is from Tamiami Trail North. The Tamiami Trail North frontage access for the Mr. Tequila restaurant will be removed as will the access to 3100 Tamiami. While reduction of curb cuts is generally a goal along major arterials like North Trail, it will increase the level of vehicular traffic on the residential side streets, Ridge Street and Rosemary Lane. (9) Whether buffers adjacent to the property zoned residential are 15 feet in width and include a wall in addition to required landscaping. The proposed concept development plan shows only a 15-foot Type B buffer for the residential properties to the east. Section 5.03.02.H.1 of the LDC is applicable in this case and a wall or fence is required for the commercial use abutting and adjacent to residential property. The applicant will be required to comply with the code. (10) Whether the off-site parking area will be used for valet parking. The applicant has not indicated any intention to provide valet parking. (11) Whether the off-site parking area will be used for employee parking. The applicant has not indicated the that the off-site parking exemption will be used for employees only. It is likely that employees will park in the PE area as it proposed behind and east of the proposed building. (12) Whether there are more viable alternatives available. The Zoning Division finds that the proposed parking exemption site configuration is the best alternative for the proposed parking area apart from the issues mentioned in this report. • Section 4.05.02(3)(c); Off-street parking areas must be accessible from a street, alley or other public right-of-way and all off-street parking facilities must be so arranged that no motor vehicle shall have to back onto any street, excluding single-family and two-family residential dwellings and churches approved under section 2.3.16. In accordance with LDC requirements, the parking lot has been designed so that motor vehicles would not be required to back into any abutting public right-of-way. Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 Page 6 of 9 The table provided indicates that the parking calculations for the proposed concept plan meet the standards from Sections 4.05.04, 4.05.06, and 4.05.07 of the LDC. Parking Calculations Section 4.05.04(G)Table 17,4.05.06,and 4.05.07 Shopping Center: <400,000 sf gross floor area 87 spaces =21,721 GSFA 1 space per 250 sf floor area Section 4.05.04(G),No more than 20%of shopping 4 spaces center floor area composed of restaurant w/o providing additional parking for area over 20% Restaurant=4,593 sf,allowable 4,344.2, exceeds 20%by 248.8 sf or 6%. Additional spaces calculated at 248.8 sf @ 1 space per 60 sf floor area Loading Spaces: 3 loading spaces required 3 spaces Handicap Accessible Spaces: 4 spaces required 4 spaces Total Parking Required 91 spaces Total Parking Provided 98 spaces NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): For parking exemptions, the LDC requires petitioners to notify neighboring property owners by mail, but no meeting is required. For this case, the applicant did hold a NIM on December 20, 2017. The applicant has provided an audio recording and a synopsis of the meeting. The applicant has provided documentation and the affidavit of compliance for the notification letter that was sent to residents on December 5, 2017,the materials are included in the supporting documentation. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The Office of the County Attorney Reviewed this Zoning Division report on February 8, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Division recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PE-PL20170002684 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to: 1. Amend the concept site plan to remove 7 parking spaces for a maximum of 91 parking spaces and add additional landscape area for parking lot islands with shade trees and permeable soil; and Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 Page 7 of 9 2. The Parking Exemption area is limited to lots 14, 53,and 55 of the Rosemary Heights Addition subdivision as shown on the "Sandbanks Redevelopment Conceptual Site Plan" prepared by Davidson Engineering. The plan is conceptual only and utilized for Parking Exemption approval only. Final site design and development plans shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and county laws and regulations; and 3. The Parking Exemption is limited to a maximum of 21 parking spaces and shall be restricted for use by the proposed concept building and Mr. Tequila restaurant only; and 4. The following commitments from former Resolution 2009-152 shall apply: a. The use of the PE area shall be restricted to normal business hours of operation. Signage will be posted to restrict the PE spaces to hours of use between 7am and 6pm,Monday through Friday. b. Parking within the PE area is restricted to paved surface parking. c. Landscaping buffers within the PE area abutting residential lots shall include: (i) A 6-foot prefabricated concrete wall shall be located a minimum of 4 feet from the common property line within a 15-foot Type B buffer; (ii) Vegetative plantings shall be located external to the wall such that 50% of wall is screened within one-year of planting. A continuous hedge shall be installed to ensure viability of the vegetative screen; and (iii) 1 tree per 25 feet, trees at time of planting shall be a minimum of 30 gallons, 16 feet height, 2.5 inch caliper(at 12 inches above the ground), and a 6-foot spread. Note: The agent was notified regarding the recommendation to retain conditions in Resolution 2009- 152. They wish to discuss removal of previous conditions at the hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Concept Plan Sandbanks Redevelopment Attachment B: Parking Exemption Request Detail, Lots 14, 53, 55 Rosemary Heights Sub Attachment C: Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution 2009-152 Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 Page 8 of 9 PREPARED BY: C-:' _k_.---ie-e-------> C. JAMAICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONIi,./N-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: -e'/3.44------ Z.-2d•/0 RAYMON BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION •r''.'7771,7 41-10.- 18 MICHAEL BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: - �,t`" � W - /- / 8 AMES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT A a € F gilt 1 a a A 4 '1111 r s1 I p0E n 4sRT9,g A' %. r) g a .<Rif a 8g g o e s i 2 Or. aI €2E, R 5:g 1 'Aty R 2 II i .;a . 1Mg 8 1 1i $ g ill :I A G z TAM!IAMI TRAIL NORTH(U.S H4GHWAYN �C)�p (PUBLIC RIGHT-OFWAY) _ .....:.._.._._.,$ TTL__.�_,..,:_,_ _:...e,._d�.z_. __._...,..____ mD � _ _, _ ___ _ _ - - _ _ — —1 I 3 , 25'FRONT YARD SETBACK I t r ILII — ,n tgZy rt '° a°'. _ rtn,mCASx0 I y N1 ZI t f2Di i ,,.: „ ,.....i,. ...m,,,r.K,. .....:7::44...5..e..i.1,n4,? .,.,1,,,t7i,,,,v4...ii„.4,,,.4.10.t„ 4 ' O ' " '- l7 rn C5 o y if. ZZZ41 q n 0 4 ' � _ N z b d "�� m 'z �` v r.' � `€1 ' c arv1 o 0 i a o 15'TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFER1 I ! 1 Igo I � � '15'TYPE t r� 3 k P i 3 LANDSCAPE BUFFER I j ' cS Vi .� oZTIPc —1 < z Zo = e L_ _ � - - 0 ..__ ,• -__ , i ( SAM:MAWS REDEVELOPMENT �. f $A4ouxawue,. _ II �AYIQS4M .ur.�., roanr4+4uwc coven... -.-.- .._, n.L O nME4it YiM .� -� � :�•"' CONCEPTLMU.SITE PLAN ..o.c,.o - ..,. Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 ATTACHMENT B 14'x:•I'''.*fTS U:'„i&57, (RL 3N 11'W.INtrlVrtrll tr's'n r `i.., -}---1-I ' , VI 1 - - to en i ',tea a �^ � i `1` -,i �' -..'„;„; __., it: _ ,,,..,i,,i,-,!,,,,,,,,, ;;TN.li-,-;‘. -.-.,:,-..,';',..'.'::- . ... ----,_;--'-- „,.. -- , :*, ,..,.-..,„-*. :4. Iiiii\.. ./, °' ' 1t 3iI dd��YY9 11((�11``.. ,¢ w .may LS3M •.2h ,4,,.....1L),,,:,,----,...,:.:4,,,....„,„„. b ..w '4- . «.3 1 I { ,,i, 7-- e I ShYCIRAN'SR UEYFiC VMt]it *u• DAYIDSON I � F I'. ';',;;;II:..'.'....*:::,„ Zt7N7tG AGIlt4tIC1M9Yi ,w Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION NO. 09- 152 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, GRANTING PARKING EXEMPTION PETITION PE-2008-AR-14071, IN ORDER TO PERMIT OFF-SITE PARKING ON A CONTIGUOUS LOT ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF-4), LOCATED BETWEEN ROSEMARY LANE AND RIDGE STREET, IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST IN COLLIER COUNT,FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125,Florida Statutes,has conferred on all counties in Florida 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 adopted a Land Development Code(Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County; and WHEREAS, Section 4.05.00 of the Land Development Code sets forth requirements and standards for off-street parking and loading facilities and permits an exemption from these standards under certain circumstances;and WHEREAS, after proper notice, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing to consider Parking Exemption Petition PE-2008-AR-14071 and found that the criteria set forth in Section 4.05.02.K.3 of the Land Development Code has been met and the Petition should be approved;and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: Page 1 of 2 Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 Petition PE-2008-AR-14071 filed by Michael R. Fernandez of Planning Development Incorporated representing Sandbanks, LLC is approved to permit off-site parking on contiguous land zoned Commercial (C-4),more particularly described in Exhibit A. The off-street parking shall comply with the Site Plan dated December, 2008, and prepared by Planning Development Incorporated., attached hereto as Exhibit B, and shall be subject to the conditions attached in Exhibit C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida,this a4 day of �S est.L)e., ,2009. ATTE$�T BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWI9Ht.E.$ROCK,CLERK COLLIER s UNTY,FLORIDA By d. -. 6t � By: ar- .v Ji--44... est *114 Chihmeiv clerk DO A FIALA,CHAIRMAN slit/Mari omit Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: IStevL'31111—:— Steven en T.Williams Assistant County Attorney Exhibits: A Legal Description B Site Plan C Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 2 Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 L \O '.--i I'-. 1/40 CJ V )M 1 fel `N .7 i eel d o ,330 o Nc O o to w 0.0 al II, N N N i4 N 000 v N INN N N 0 go � NNNC _o 00 • en O O cel .� a Tr 7 tt i• d' nt ' :: •t 1,-- r0 , w1 . I v I . a> i 1 0 ,y..,......: �„ r _ •,,, . .. .Q" t s- '..: c z ".240 .Fi: , .. i... lz •��' 6) a V i OA b0 .sem . • ' iJ,i. , Q' v, v, rn ty D *Tr. s '.. ' �.� ,r V) M CA ON OT M 01 ON ldrL.-41'-77 A . -,1 ,..t.'. -: sr !et. Sy111"4s r. ,F" Nzci / N rtN N N N —i + y 00 `- .n ---j.r e .,_ r .� , -' �.*.,. '''' .4-t„ �_Ft�, I I 1 LI % - O VI -ppl... x3 ,r, a et O d W -7 I 1_Y2 F �I' ... .---- I_k i e? °I g cz g 0 ,.,„_ . . t... r .N.. O p . n'1 J i o 3 r7 .';*111., y 1 r +La LiUdt ,� _.. .� �' \ .� y .5.. '# 44 :/'+N_Sr. 's'* t' s-, ,i'-, "'Li r c ....,.4'..,---- ,,` -{ Q u x x x x x x x Y' d+ •,:e,,.,•+ 'k •,,h1, ,. a '�+, «: jj E J. t- . %I 1.)U � U) 0 001 v0i ' rOn vJ vl V)i ti V) J 1:4 Ra C4 C4 C4 er Chi 04 1 O' o0 M sh O ON t C O O O OO O O W 000 N 000 1O0 000 1O0 X70 r' O •--' N 0 O N N N O AAR • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IC Qi�+ �mIvIA !wIw I t 0 0 Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 �ITr$cT_PNOFERTT LIN£ND,11C I RE NTIAL18UFiF IS coot MINIMUV MNCM hAN1�F f1 Tp.0 G1IRlliiEp MT.4 INTEGRATED 'DOT HIGH PREFABRICATED CONCRETE PARKING EY ARI DON AREA 'P TINGE RATH GAT OF 0/ON BOTH SIDES TOTETI ON ER7 A YINIYUM HFIfEIT OF 0 FEET AND,TREES 71 FEEL ON CENTER AV*STALLED TAM A MINIMUM HEIGHT OE IS FE ET 4 FER ' •_ ------ COLLEN COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT I CODE(LOC)TYPE O RM{ DT.BUFFED 10 • IC FT MINIMUM MDTH BUFFER YAM COLLIER COUNTY L48IAA,.DPNENTINTEGRATED f oCIOT 0.4H CODE lLIIG)TYPE D 1 PRfFA¢RICAVA CONCRETE ON jr WALL/FENCE WTTN SHRl18S ON BOTH 10 FT MINIMUMNTEORATE DAFOOT FER HIGH ",a •,'�:• :]11 . '1,��'��` HEIGHT OFSrEEMANDE TREES 30 FEET PREFWITh lED CONCRETE ONBOTH I Y/. 4 r ON CENTER INSTALLED WITH A MINIMUM WALL/FENCEMWITH ED UTA ON BOTH 5048 TO BE MAINTAINED AT A MINIMUM •► ,. HEIGHT OF 11 DEFT HEIGHT OFT FEET,AND,TREES SO FEET ON CENTER INSTALLED WITH A MINIMUM N ,y S I, r , -• PROVIDED PARKING: HEIGHT OF 14FEET. I G'; +t.• .,!•E`{ • • .:,F• I I IPARANC EXEMPTION AREA) 5SF-4RI.M1nSIi Zan.p OO11c1 p E PAR-4 BoC.rer'And MO C4 Comnwr`r1 la Nrp DWEI \ y„ WEST Of PARKING E1fEYPMdI1~ I;•PARNUNO SPACES(Ott) ,� •PRY MI II ■ /. • �' CA Can nrnW IPnp DNAI. 'J3 02 1111111111: .. E4 TOTALDAP OTIC SPACES(1 0X) COVERED DROP-0PF •N ..r.• . Al., I TW /.--' !,� , 14 FT.CLEAR MIN En Wel IL.II TO L41D• •D r' WAY N • Isom DS ON Are ii, Y Mirk'', ROSEMARY LANE�6EPC EDEET D ByyFfffjjFFjj I . 1Z�By0W t1Ee, MI R.W fl�FpEp COLLIER COI.INn LAND OEVELORM(NTCOtIJ€]f fMMn LAND DEVELOPMENT ODOR NOG/TYPE IME a. 1»81f1�tA�iwerglisil f 111.411111111 CDpE I/DC)OVERC IE PT MINIM4M WIDTH SUFFER YPTN 10 FT MIMMUM WIDTH BUFFER WT1TREE828 FEET Oh CENTER INSTALLED • 0141/11 TREES 30 FEET ON CENTER INSTALLED MM AMRNMUM FEIGNS CE TO•',VIET, wQ , / G. - 'WITH AMW'MUM NEIyN I ya 4E.1'Z 0141: AND,ODUSLE ROW HEDGE CO MOMSQ AND,DOUBLE ROW HEDGE a SHRGNMANTANED AT.MITWUM GF$I INCHES (1� k.. a;; MAINTM NED ATA MINIMUM OF SE INCHES IN HEIGHT. -. IN HEIGHT. amon IIIII All MII MI NIB MIN NM Eli Sam= HATCH NEY • ' Iklh,\• '/„r■YiR .O/FItoi Am ForroCloonr/ NI 10 Prod* Firek,iiiiiiiiiiMikill NIFINOIN ------+-----` I - 413014 w1v�{gFEN �pE�FEg�qL�M1\'L,(�QQEyELqP�t�bpQ��OC`1rp'£ — �.-E^ ilir :IE ID5d#WIDTH BWFER WfTH TREEi I9'4ii 10EHttk° . . I INRTAI I SQ HATN A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A.1FERRET ARCA DOUDLF HEDGE ROW i s I I F SHRUBS MAAN NNAT A M OF%WO4ta. ! pppp+ 1 G 1 r ie■a 1 comm.. , p • 1 i ,.41-. .11 MON NET PUN I ALf' GO E • N011Cru EXHIBIT,If ® �, rt. {2 KEY TUN,COSINE/104.M ypLN1U� SCALE T'•KC 4234r•v APT •A SCALE r•for, MOTES'_ ..a1 IN...V,izrrrwlI ,fN I.V.I. WE AY VONT.M.N.M.NP..AVAloOt IN IA HMV..iM..Ma Of.*A.tN VI. 11 SITE RAM WTNNPAM(MNO ENE MPOIE M ON AREA SHALL BE SSTA1A LLV CONSSTENT 0Y141*e•sorra.0 111.PTONiTROFAa•M...I.OtMV'o A..,ryt 1O.OtAA d u1,MMT.,W PO IW PRM OENCRON Loral HRommor 0) ME PARY40 EXEMPTHON PAMINO SPACES ANAL It RESTRICTED TO I ,e1.M.0[AGN Or PA...Pa.a..i r fop....folal,As P...NW.NO,OO.Or..VA-, XIETINQ PAMI0•0 REQU'*EMEN'E FDR WOKE EPACE INOIeO.IMMr.{*OPIOMY I*AutOl•fV00.I FMW aOAA.N.1]rAK1f0'O YAOMA PfmO I) STE PLAN,NULD11N FOOTPRINT M D LAND U!MIMM CA MIRO SIZE ARG ARE I_•ONCEFTUALAMO NAT C]40101 PROVIDED THE .Ww1.A•.OMXlIC NO,O.M PANrmHomrON NAMM NIA N.RI to room 8 IN.1MM.1*Of HONCHO I K P.I.ICAS CHANGE/SI ARE CONAITENT MON APPLICABLE LOC DEVELOPMENT K AIPEt3C TO I.P'Ost HIM.O STANDARDS AND PA.TAtO E41441100/CO*R81111NTT I.wlnOI u1,HWNw.1, py, .*A ..l0 .. 0*010T.,.A.Oh1 fA*AAft 1.Of�[OVID to UV1 Of%Va VOO AS SI DENELOPTANT CM A PARN*NGGAAAGE ON TOE COAKII RALLY ZONE PORTION 4 Ohluu KVA,r,No fr.A.4 NOA. FRC/NF!E= , 1M011 s*s.M0000 AOQO MY m..P..tae.]rM*N,P r.,L NW..PONNO toVra•1 PAw.O A0..ACOM 1.......141 I IO,MI PANOXO MEA Rids.50/M O]411.4M.•R'NO AVON• n•o•. Moir I,droacdvre w.Ment eta P•R.t(arr.PO4WC,RMU.4f tome:L.A.4.AA.r.,AOM.41 or/44 mu R N•M 4101=7 114 NT.. • No WK. 0.1.11.11.1.11 ONVADIV 6.0.0110 a PS 101t0N411NIYAR f.d.•.h..o ONO 5.11 NM A 1ARSCO% O INI.P.IILROW .. .RR OIL/4044N s,P A RIS OP .O TRH Naroot**AAR/Alt+ .O.1.444.OLA *ITT IIIA* d �. IO --_•JLlir _. . .IV Imp tW.M.WMM.N as at...I WA,V.ANV/•,000 w#A..a..A•M1 ON.Al 4A• *r Y.. ItO*1 l'IOTOMn . TM[NRI41100.WO..fOVnO,AAU OIM M.440*1 114 d .'1*0.4 004 -IDf110180•0�..,$ d.rt MOTAO✓r '00*....Cff1000KNIt.U.fOOANO•INNA. la*.I.HCOL V.A.PAVE If*LMI 0IMMf.l IOor... yn f.Ie. 0O0W WOIRW.WA'ODM IPI.Uro.. .01.10 N..A.O NRI M•.00I AK..*d MA w 4o..f M��..yE_ ••«11.10*555.m.4..mAoNOnfrN...SO'C00imoot 5/WANDPl1RI 4 Irl woo. 0*LI04w�.IROIO*4116.0IOI:]II.1 AY I414.4.IIS... .44 O•..I.NET.H.Awa.• W. PHUED VON.VI M..oN.n.d ra.lNMIAR KN. ▪ M NOV.. ,.. • •WINS*1*0*'he/Tw�1TNA 14 04.3A0*0MIMI• .aA ..VOl.If..I..ft •..0+' — S*111 { • IEIINEUMIIA.Sn'IM4aII0.1114.A. va•.4RAKMI.•• •N0u10Ifl tlN0 COg11T 1 MMI MON.I'*FOOT MOI O.,.WOW WO DINE o't[ Wei 01 f Hf 0 tANVIGNE at..AMA•••, , 410,181 Gad.-wlr.I,eanld fAf I...O Novol.it ONA l.. . *E0005...INN ..40./DAANWM.N1off4 NV 51.4.• Ofer..Iq.tla*O Il 5.5 M00.•.A.a KN114S.m.tenf,,n1.d WI MTAMOOIOT W Wd fat.0111 .....faial01]..RM N.stl.AW W Itro.V.N o�e0*0 f r 00l d O,MCI NO..M.Irw.c•• APH.1M1 WFwIIE WM.1041../ORUM Wt. 01 MTP..0MA.110.P.atW YP.MRtwf ToddM!u, "M4.I1R ' FPIH.*141*PI.N RON M.•M I*1IOMretroo,0.4.44 d N raw Na mom M MON M 1111 d MNM,.OM N.A N.....00/d M 0410•1 MANIH.r.a NY•P wo—. N.•Na M„nsal.ia.h\ Oftlf AV....dONATIPT NARI..,.01 M NW.ma•NN.O.LAUV ••,l O u.P PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED T. yW T41MN PONTCONCEPTUAL SITE RAN ► E hXHpv4RIr]P.ta1.,rA.11O.11tM.N•IPaw AilN.OlrA/.A.CRIEIA r' F IS]CA.IEILO PINE STATE],MIFLES 110OONIIv "27111;.."" �� ' 111114,111111111111. �.... — ..PE/TOWN N•IR.t.,rtcwu 4XR.ir•. • Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 PE-2008-AR-14071 Midtown Point Commitments: 1. The use of the additional 0.69±acres parking exemption area shall be restricted to serve normal office business hours of operation. Signage will be posted restricting the parking exemption spaces to hours of use between 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM,Monday through Friday. 2. The parking exemption is limited to a maximum of 63 parking spaces and shall be restricted to meeting parking requirements for office space. 3. Parking within the additional parking exemption area is restricted to surface parking. 4. Parking within the additional parking exemption area shall be posted with signage designation the parking as restricted to employees parking who work at The Midtown Point development. 5. Parking lot lighting within the parking exemption area will be restricted to light fixtures having an overall height no greater than 42 inches. 6. There shall be no direct access from the adjacent streets to the parking exemption area. Access to this parking area shall be via the commercially zoned property. 7. Landscaping within the parking exemption area shall exceed Collier County Land Development Code(LDC)requirements by providing landscaping to the following standard: Each parking space shall abut a landscape buffer;an interior parking lot landscape island;or a tree diamond that supports a palm tree having a minimum clear height of 7 feet and a minimum overall height of 14 feet. 8. The buffers from the parking exemption area to the adjacent uses shall be: a. To Abutting Residential Lots: •A 6-foot prefabricated concrete wall,located a minimum of 4 feet from the common property line;within a 15-foot wide Collier County LDC Type B Landscape Buffer; •Vegetative plantings shall be located external to the wall and/or fence such that 50 percent of the wall and/or fence are screened within 1 year of the installation of said vegetative material.A continuous hedge shall be installed to ensure the continued viability of the vegetative screen; • 1 tree per 25 feet,the trees at the time of installation shall be a minimum of 30 gallons, 16 feet in height,have a 2.5 inch caliper(at 12 inches above the ground)and a 6-foot spread. b. To Ridge Street and Rosemary Lane Right-of-Way: •A 4-foot prefabricated concrete wall within a 10-foot wide LDC Type D Landscape Buffer; • Vegetative plantings shall be located external to the wall and/or fence such that 50 percent of the wall and/or fence are screened within 1 year of the installation of said vegetative material.An irrigation system shall be installed to ensure the continued viability of the vegetative screen.The required double row hedge requirement shall be split by the wall.The composite hedge shall be grown and maintained to a height of 6 feet. a One(1)tree per 30 feet,the trees at the time of installation shall be a minimum of 25 gallons, 14 feet in height,have a 2.5 inch caliper(at 12 inches above the ground)and a 5-foot spread. Parking Exemption, PE PL20170002684 Cot tier County SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: APRIL 5, 2018 SUBJECT: PETITION PE-PL20170002684, 3106 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH PARKING EXEMPTION PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS: Applicant Owner: Agent: Sandbanks LLC Frederick E Hood, AICP 700 Old Trail Drive Davidson Engineering, Inc. Naples, FL 34103 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant seeks approval for a Parking Exemption Application (PE) to permit off-site parking for the subject parcel, which is zoned C-4, General Commercial, and allow for parking on an abutting and contiguous parcel directly east of the subject property, which is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family. The parking area is referred to as off-site because it is located on abutting residentially zoned parcels. However, the project area is one contiguous site. The requested PE seeks to repeal the previous parking exemption that was approved under Resolution 2009-152 by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The proposed parking exemption would permit additional parking area for a proposed new retail building at 3106 Tamiami Trail North adjacent to the existing Mr. Tequila restaurant. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS: The application was continued to the April 5, 2018 CCPC hearing from the March 1, 2018 CCPC hearing. A discrepancy was discovered and the Zoning Division supplemental analysis is provided here. The intent of the PE request is to permit off-site parking on the RSF-4 single-family parcel as Page 1 of 4 stated. The discrepancy was discovered because the applicant is also concurrently seeking an Administrative Parking Reduction (APR) in order to maintain the outdoor seating component for the existing Mr. Tequila restaurant. According to the applicant, their original PE application sought to remove the outdoor seating component for the restaurant and move forward with redevelopment. If the applicant eliminated the 784 square feet of outdoor seating,there would have been an excess of required parking for the proposed shopping plaza building; 91 spaces required and 98 spaces provided. However, after applying for the Parking Exemption, the applicant submitted an Administrative Parking Reduction application, which included the outdoor seating area for the restaurant. The outdoor seating area of 784 square feet changed the minimum parking requirement for the new shopping plaza from 91 spaces to 114 spaces. This change appears to be the reason the applicant has applied for an APR. An updated and revised parking calculation is provided here with changes in bold: Parking Calculations Section 4.05.04(G)Table 17,4.05.06,and 4.05.07 Shopping Center: <400,000 sf gross floor area 90.02 spaces =22,505 GSFA @ 1 space per 250 sf floor area Section 4.05.04(G),No more than 20%of shopping 23.5 spaces center floor area composed of restaurant w/o providing additional parking for area over 20% Restaurant=5,377 sf, allowable 4,501, exceeds 20%by 876 sf or 17%. Additional spaces calculated at 876 sf @ 1 space per 60 sf floor area Restaurant seats(area over maximum 20%)=47 (47/2=23.5 spaces) Loading Spaces: 3 loading spaces required 3 spaces Handicap Accessible Spaces: 4 spaces required 4 spaces Total Parking Required 114 spaces(113.52) Total Parking Provided 98 spaces It should be noted that the applicant has also amended their Administrative Parking Reduction to seek an overall parking reduction of 13.67% for the proposed shopping plaza reducing the number to 98 spaces. The original APR was for a 10%reduction or 10 parking spaces. The applicant has revised their Narrative Statement and it has been included in this supplemental report as (ATTACHMENT A).Note:Applicant labeled it as their Attachment B. Page 2 of 4 As detailed in the original Zoning Division report for the March 1, 2018, the applicant requests to repeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution 2009-152. They have included their requested language as part of the revised Narrative Statement. Under the current circumstances, the applicant requests the CCPC to approve the Parking Exemption application PE PL20170002684 contingent upon Zoning Division approval of the Administrative Parking Reduction application APR PL20180000263. The Zoning Division has been amended the recommendation to the CCPC based on the current findings. RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Division recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PE-PL20170002684 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to: 1. Zoning Division approval for Administrative Parking Reduction application APR PL20180000263,which reduces the minimum required parking to 98 spaces; and 2. The Parking Exemption area is limited to lots 14, 53, and 55 of the Rosemary Heights Addition subdivision as shown on the "Sandbanks Redevelopment Conceptual Site Plan" prepared by Davidson Engineering. The plan is conceptual only and utilized for Parking Exemption approval only. Final site design and development plans shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and county laws and regulations; and 3. The Parking Exemption is limited to a maximum of 21 parking spaces and shall be restricted for use by the proposed concept building and Mr. Tequila restaurant only; and 4. The following commitments from former Resolution 2009-152 shall apply: a. The use of the PE area shall be restricted to normal business hours of operation. Signage will be posted to restrict the PE spaces to hours of use between 7am and 6pm, Monday through Friday. b. Parking within the PE area is restricted to paved surface parking. c. Landscaping buffers within the PE area abutting residential lots shall include: (i) A 6-foot prefabricated concrete wall shall be located a minimum of 4 feet from the common property line within a 15-foot Type B buffer; (ii) Vegetative plantings shall be located external to the wall such that 50% of wall is screened within one-year of planting. A continuous hedge shall be installed to ensure viability of the vegetative screen; and (iii) 1 tree per 25 feet, trees at time of planting shall be a minimum of 30 gallons, 16 feet height, 2.5 inch caliper (at 12 inches above the ground), and a 6-foot spread. Page 3 of 4 w PREPARED BY: C. James Sabo,AICP Principal Planner,Zoning Division Growth Management Department Page 4 of 4 Co e-r County SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: JUNE 7, 2018 SUBJECT: PETITION PE-PL20170002684, 3106 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH PARKING EXEMPTION PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS: Applicant Owner: Agent: Sandbanks LLC Frederick E Hood, AICP 700 Old Trail Drive Davidson Engineering, Inc. Naples, FL 34103 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples,FL 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant seeks approval for a Parking Exemption Application (PE) to permit off-site parking for the subject parcel, which is zoned C-4, General Commercial, and allow for parking on an abutting and contiguous parcel directly east of the subject property, which is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family. The parking area is referred to as off-site because it is located on abutting residentially zoned parcels. However, the project area is one contiguous site. The requested PE seeks to repeal the previous parking exemption that was approved under Resolution 2009-152 by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The proposed parking exemption would permit additional parking area for a proposed new retail building at 3106 Tamiami Trail North and the existing Mr. Tequila restaurant. Additionally, the applicant has concurrently applied for an Administrative Parking Reduction(APR), APR PL20180000263 related to this site. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS: The application was continued to the June 7, 2018 hearing from the May 17, 2018, April 5, 2018 and March 1, 2018 CCPC hearings. Page 1 of 8 ver.5.28.18 At the April 5th hearing, the CCPC requested additional information regarding project details, including information related to the use of the proposed 17,000 square foot building, parking demand, location of parking spaces, emergency access from Rosemary Lane, trash enclosure location, landscape buffers, and site lighting. The Zoning Division compiled a list of the additional information requested by the Planning Commission and provided it to the agent. The response to the information requested at the April 5, 2018 meeting by the CCPC has been provided to the Zoning Division by the agent, including a revised parking calculation and a revised conceptual site plan. The back-up material packet for the May 17, 2018 CCPC public hearing was delivered late and was included as part of the May 17, 2018 CCPC Agenda Packet. Following the continuance of the May 17th CCPC hearing, the agent provided updated (Parking Exemption Area Conditions of Approval) and an updated (Conceptual Site Plan). They are included as Attachment A and B. The back-up CCPC packet materials for the May 17, 2018 hearing contains the following information, which was requested by the CCPC: 1. Revised Conceptual Site Plan 2. North Collier Fire District Dead End Waiver 3. Parking Demand Analysis, Trebilcock Engineering 4. Traffic Evaluation Report, Trebilcock Engineering 5. Revisions required by CCPC at April 5,2018 meeting 6. Proposed Parking Exemption Conditions of Approval by Applicant 7. Original application form. The information requested by the CCPC at the April 5, 2018 hearing and the applicant response is listed here: 1. A revised narrative to reflect how much of the proposed 17,000 square feet is going to be office as the parking rate calculation is for a shopping center use. Applicant Response: Due to the conceptual nature of the project redevelopment, an approximation of office space square footage, to be provided within the proposed shopping center, cannot be provided. Trebilcock Planning and Engineering has been engaged to provide a parking demand analysis and traffic evaluation report based on using the LDC requirements for the "Shopping Center"land use. The parking demand analysis was evaluated to determine parking adequacy using two methods: The Collier County LDC parking criteria and the ITE Manual (, both using Shopping Centers for evaluation purposes. Per the conclusion of the analysis, it is determined that the proposed parking lot layout exceeds the overall maximum peak hour parking demand for the project. The traffic evaluation report was assessed based on the land uses illustrated in the ITE Manual, 101h Edition, using Land Use Code 820 — Shopping Center. Per the ITE Manual, shopping centers may contain restaurants among other uses and the ITE traffic data includes their effects. Based on the results of this traffic evaluation report,from a traffic stand point, the Page 2 of 8 ver.5.28.18 proposed redevelopment scenario is less intensive when compared to the approved development parameters. Additionally, the US 41 connection closure is in agreement with current FDOT standards and it provides for increased traffic capacity and safe traffic operations. Zoning Division Response: The applicant states they "cannot" provide an approximate calculation for floor area dedicated to office use. A reasonable assumption is that 20 percent or 3,400 square feet of the floor area will be dedicated to office use. 2. A request from the CCPC to retain the staff conditions of approval from the original report, unless there is an objection. Applicant Response:Request is unclear. Please clarify. Zoning Division Response: The applicant presented their proposed conditions of approval at the April 5, 2018 meeting, which differ from staff recommended conditions. At the April 5th hearing, the CCPC suggested edits to the applicant's proposed conditions. The applicant's revisions are presented here. The Zoning Division staff recommendation is based on the applicant's proposed revised conditions of approval and Zoning Division amendments. 3. Provide an analysis to tie the PE and APR together How did you get to 98 spaces as the bottom line? Applicant Response: Please refer to the Parking Demand Analysis, prepared by Trebilcock Engineering and Planning. Per the conclusion of this analysis, it is determined that the proposed parking lot layout exceeds the overall maximum peak hour parking demand for the project Zoning Division Response: The Parking Demand Analysis supports a different number for required parking demand The PE number has been modified based on the relocation of the trash enclosure. The total parking demand is based on shopping center use, however, adding office use would alter the parking demand. 4. Emergency access for Rosemary Lane? Only a small hedge for fire truck emergency vehicle access they can drive over it? Applicant Response: Per coordination with the North Collier Fire District, the emergency access to the site(off of Rosemary Lane) has been removed Please see the attached Conceptual Site Plan. Zoning Division Response:Acceptable 5. Revise Master Concept Plan document, loading zones and trash enclosures need to be removed from PE. Applicant Response: The Master Concept Plan has been updated to remove the loading zone from the Parking Exemption area. Page 3 of 8 ver.5,28,18 Zoning Division Response: Trash enclosure and loading zone were removed from PE area. 6. Strike#10 and#11 from Davidson revisions... Response: The updated Conditions of Approval reflect the removal of#10 and#11. Zoning Division Response:Removed, acceptable. 7. Dark sky compliant, remove 10 ft light poles and replace with bollards down washing sconces. If light poles are used, place in east asphalt strip facing C-4 and away from houses. Response: Please see the Condition #'s 5 & 6, updated to include language regarding the light poles within, and outside, the Parking Exemption area. Zoning Division Response: Condition 5 has been revised to 42-inch maximum height, however, location of the proposed light poles is not specified in the east asphalt strip. Not compliant with CCPC request After speaking with applicant directly, they continue to propose the light poles at the east side of the PE area and directed away from the neighboring residential properties with pedestrian safety as their rationale. For Condition 6, the light poles are proposed in the C- 4 zoned parking area and permitted by LDC. 8. Portray type D buffer on plan and illustrate to show vegetation being used. Response: Renderings to illustrate the project's proposed vegetation will be shown at the CCPC hearing. Identifying LDC required buffer planting standards is redundant when we are not proposing an alternative buffer planting plan. Zoning Division Response:An illustrative rendering at the CCPC hearing is acceptable 9. Neighbors are asking for an 8 ft wall. Response: Please see Condition #7, updated to require an 8-foot wall. Zoning Division Response:An 8-foot wall is identified for the entire boundary between the PE area and the adjacent and abutting residentially zoned lots. The proposal is acceptable. 10. Also, the parking calculation before project, for the (approved project), and proposed 1- story project, and the differences. Information is not required but requested by the chair. Response: Please refer to the Traffic Evaluation Report, analyzing the differences between the approved vs.proposed projects. The Traffic Evaluation Report provided by the applicant indicates that the proposed one-story redevelopment scenario is less intensive than the approved 5-story office and commercial use that was approved in 2009. The parking calculation table is provided here. Page 4 of 8 ver,5.28.18 Parking Calculations Section 4.05.04(G)Table 17,4.05.06,and 4.05.07 Shopping Center(SC)20%Restaurant: <400,000 sf gross floor area=21,629 GSFA @ 1 space per 250 sf floor area Proposed Building Area= 68.5 spaces 17,128 Square Feet Restaurant Floor Area=4,501 18.0 spaces Square Feet(20%of SC) Shopping Center(SC)More than 20% Restaurant: (Section 4.05.04(G), No more than 20%of shopping center floor area composed of restaurant w/o providing additional parking for area over 20%) Restaurant Floor Area=876 16.5 spaces Square Feet(>20% of SC) 876 sf/60 sf= 14.6 spaces 33 seats/2= 16.5 spaces Loading Spaces: 3 loading spaces required 3 spaces Handicap Accessible Spaces: 4 spaces required 4 spaces Total Parking Required 103 spaces Total Parking Provided 100 spaces Transportation Evaluation Review: The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan,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 Page 5 of 8 ver.5.28.18 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 Parking Exemption Request does not normally include the agent submitted Traffic Evaluation Report. Additionally, the GMP provisions above do not specifically cover this type of zoning request, however the policy does include..." or intensity of permissible development" which this request is intended to address. Therefore, staff is providing the following: The proposed Parking Exemption Request will according to the Transportation Evaluation provided generate a projected total of+1- 119 PM peak hour,2-way trips for the proposed facility on the adjacent roadway, Tamiami Trail North(US 41). This represents a net reduction of(2)PM peak hour trips when compared to the currently approved facility. There is adequate capacity on US 41 to accommodate the proposed development. Therefore, the subject Parking Exemption Request can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, and as noted above the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5-year planning period. Zoning Review: The applicant has revised their Narrative Statement and it has been included in the back-up materials packet information. Regarding the site changes, the applicant has submitted a revised conceptual site plan. The proposed trash enclosure has been relocated to the southwest portion of the site adjacent to the North Trail (U.S. 41). The loading zone has been relocated near the restaurant entry. It should be noted that the applicant has also amended their Administrative Parking Reduction to seek an overall parking reduction of 3.0% for the proposed shopping plaza use. The previous APR request was 13.67% for the proposed shopping plaza reducing the number from 114 spaces to 98 spaces. The Trebilcock Engineering report provided the basis for the change to the original APR application. As detailed in the original Zoning Division report for the March 1, 2018, the applicant requests to repeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution 2009-152. The applicant has included their proposed conditions of approval as noted above. The applicant's conditions are included in the back-up materials. Page 6 of 8 ver.5.28.18 The current applicant request is for the CCPC to approve the Parking Exemption application PE PL20170002684 and the Zoning Division approval of the Administrative Parking Reduction application APR PL20180000263. The Zoning Division staff recommendation has been changed from the original recommendation in the March 1, 2018 Staff Report. The revised recommendation is based on the discussion at the April 5, 2018 CCPC hearing and discussions with the applicant. The recommendation is based partly on the proposed conditions of approval presented by the applicant with strikethrough revisions by Zoning staff. RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Division recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC) forward Petition PE-PL20170002684 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to: [strike through and underline of the applicant's proposed conditions] 1. Any Administrative Parking Reduction may not reduce the minimum required parking for property shown on the conceptual site plan below 100 spaces; and 2. The Parking Exemption area is limited to lots 14, 53. and 55 of the Rosemary Heights Addition subdivision as shown on the "Sandbanks Redevelopment Conceptual Site Plan" prepared by Davidson Engineering. The plan is conceptual only and utilized for Parking Exemption approval only. Final site design and development clans shall comply with all applicable federal,state,and county laws and regulations; and 3. The Parking Exemption is limited to a maximum of 25 parking spaces and shall be restricted for use by the proposed concept building and Mr.Tequila restaurant only;and 4. The Parking Exemption area is limited to improvements shown on the attached Site Plan. attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution and improvements identified on this Exhibit C. This area shall be restricted for use by only the proposed buildings shown on the Site Plan,, attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution:and 5. The Parking within the Parking Exemption area will be only paved surface parking;and 6. The use of the Parking Exemption area for parking will be restricted to normal retail business hours of operation. Signage will be posted restricting the parking exemption spaces to hours of use between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM:and 7. Parking Exemption Area Lighting — Parking lot lighting within the Parking Exemption Area will be restricted to light fixtures having an overall height no greater than 42 inches and shall be restricted to operating in the Parking Exemption Area between the hours of 6:30 AM and 10:30 PM. Page 7 of 8 ver.5.28.18 light sources away from adjacent residential properties. Site lighting shall be provided, adjacent to the parking spaces and / or drive aisle, with full cutoff shielding and not exceeding 0.2 foot candles at the shared property line(s). and restricted to operating between the hours of 6:30 AM 10:30 PM; and 9. C-4 Area Lighting (adjacent to Parking Exemption Area) — Lighting provided at the rear of any building and structure and adjacent to the parking exemption area or adjacent to lots 57, 59 and 16 of the Rosemary Heights Subdivision (recorded in Plat Books I & 2, Pages 78 & 83, respectively of the Public Records of Collier County) shall be in the fonn' of shielded structure mounted wall packs. These shielded fixtures shall be placed no higher than 10-feet measured from finished floor of the building or structure. 10. C-4 Pole Lighting at the rear of any building or structure and adjacent to the Parking Exemption area (no higher than 10-feet in height) shall be Dark Skies compliant and installed to protect neighboring properties from direct glare by directing all light sources away from adjacent residential properties. Site lighting shall be provided with full cutoff shielding and not exceeding 0.2 foot-candles at the shared property line(s). and restricted to operating between the hours of 6:30 AM — 10:30 PM; and 11. An 8-foot precast concrete, composite fencing materials, concrete masonry. or brick wall shall be provided and located a minimum of 6 feet from the common property line adjacent to lots 57. 59 and 16 -1-8 of the Rosemary Heights Subdivision (recorded in Plat Books 1 & 2. Pages 78 & 83, respectively of the Public Records of Collier County); within a 15-foot wide Collier County LDC Type B Landscape Buffer: and 12. There shall be no direct access from the adjacent streets to the parking exemption area. Access to this parking area shall be via the commercially zoned property. PREPARED BY: C. James Sabo, AICP Principal Planner, Zoning Division Growth Management Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A. Applicant Parking Exemption Conditions of Approval, dated 5/29/18 Attachment B. Revised Conceptual Site Plan, dated 5/29/18 Page 8 of 8 ver.5.28.18 Attachment A. (Applicant's Conditions of Approval, 5/29/18) PARKING EXEMPTION AREA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Parking Exemption area is limited to lots 14, 53, and 55 of the Rosemary Heights Addition subdivision as shown on the "Sandbanks Redevelopment Conceptual Site Plan" prepared by Davidson Engineering. The plan is conceptual only and utilized for Parking Exemption approval only. Final site design and development plans shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and county laws and regulations; and 2. The Parking Exemption area is limited to improvements shown on the attached Site Plan, attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution and identified on this Exhibit C.This area shall be restricted for use by only the proposed buildings shown on the Site Plan, attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution; and 3. The Parking within the Parking Exemption area will be only paved surface parking; and 4. The use of the Parking Exemption area for parking will be restricted to normal retail business hours of operation. Signage will be posted restricting the parking exemption spaces to hours of use between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM; and 5. Parking Exemption Area Lighting — Parking lot lighting within the Parking Exemption Area will be restricted to light fixtures having an overall height no greater than 42 inches and shall be restricted to operating in the Parking Exemption Area between the hours of 6:30 AM and 10:30 PM. Pole Lighting(no higher than 10-feet in height)for the safe illumination of the drive aisle(within the Parking Exemption Area) is permitted. Site lighting shall be Dark Skies compliant and installed to protect neighboring properties from direct glare by directing all light sources away from adjacent residential properties. Site lighting shall be provided, adjacent to the parking spaces and / or drive aisle, with full cutoff shielding and not exceeding 0.2 foot-candles at the shared property line(s),and restricted to operating between the hours of 6:30 AM—10:30 PM; and 6. C-4 Area Lighting(adjacent to Parking Exemption Area)—Lighting provided at the rear of any building and structure and adjacent to the parking exemption area or adjacent to lots 57, 59 and 18 of the Rosemary Heights Subdivision (recorded in Plat Books 1&2, Pages 78&83, respectively of the Public Records of Collier County) shall be in the form of shielded structure mounted wall packs. These shielded fixtures shall be placed no higher than 10-feet measured from finished floor of the building or structure. Pole Lighting at the rear of any building or structure and adjacent to the Parking Exemption area (no higher than 10-feet in height) shall be Dark Skies compliant and installed to protect neighboring properties from direct glare by directing all light sources away from adjacent residential properties. Site lighting shall be provided with full cutoff shielding and not exceeding 0.2 foot-candles at the shared property line(s), and restricted to operating between the hours of 6:30 AM —10:30 PM;and 7. An 8-foot precast concrete, composite fencing materials, concrete masonry, or brick wall shall be provided and located a minimum of 6 feet from the common property line adjacent to lots 57,59 and 18 of the Rosemary Heights Subdivision (recorded in Plat Books 1&2, Pages 78&83, respectively of the Public Records of Collier County); within a 15-foot wide Collier County LDC Type B Landscape Buffer; and 8. There shall be no direct access from the adjacent streets to the parking exemption area.Access to this parking area shall be via the commercially zoned property. Attachment B I p A Am& pp RI V N p yV Dl9� N H 00 fnvl tJOnt �kai ATwA O N F I,,N 2 t:H V h' Nti90 I. I ,.� A il ' n Z 7J L N V a D V y C A pC) ym N CO 21 CO co O CO OC P5 8.1cZt t g„ as GI8. II 2 . B 3 m z om zm o y o N$ 6" 'm7^Igg 00 a c Z <� O m G = 9F ,`;'.0., y c A p n � a a� 6 eOz p u/ AI p, S-.0 % 3 '6pp° d 5 WI co O{ %v 2Op i n. rg mz�fIpc '83-‘'> 7 �^ M$zg § 3 Z Zm O Fol nGD1 N� mp'lwwy mA V2�Pili n n n zApm O 2 Q y3` pw C� ypZ O m V �p T y rp S1 D T' "1 y z -i --< ti A co Z cn TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH a z p N p -�� (U.S.HIGHWAY 41 hD oy m • $Al nm' -n n-O (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) , F g ;n �- .�v-----.� m N N m 0�o n / m 8iii •- Gl v� . I e� ' �25F#WNT YAM" e, ! ,1 ,d I __ I It I 11 ,530 I r • mm. (t U : &t. —f co m 7 ,. - "4.r a _ i, I m o (� { � 1 �€ �Q3 _ _• Ne �Z j �,. , IR{ 1 1 x01 '' ',•:',W•7,-''''4,' � ~ I li e ' ,.,' I �� kti I I i I I o I m 1 1 N 1 A i 1 C 1 cn ° Del m 1 t 1 -< I o I a:L1 ':"s' -a-s I S I '0 01-0 mv1 c i IiZ1 I SQ IAm1 r 1 m -I v °:71 • co1 n 1 i c l o q— Nom,°z Ti 1 A 1 n ( Z o rmin 041:111- X71 1 _ mm Ate . • b 1 �`,I ° � I410" d m lNm N TI - - z �Zm 04 n — 1"d 1 ...r...:.,N- Eek 4.,•-!,,,AL , ....4. ' x 1 i.. I „ i ' 515 _ 1 ""� IN I ( w �"_ , I1 < ', e' ,y,"`3 Q r%.'7 tea: I r t" Z� '1 '� I 1 1 ZN 12TI >II � T ..; ( 0'2'7.1 !� 1 BLANDSCA m ; � 9 , I BUFFER WITH WALL — ( 1 ►C + iso 1 ' I > 15'TYPE B LANDSCAPE ; 1 1 ( BUFFER WITH WALL I 1 O I (.) �81________± v, I 1 1 0bil 1 5R7zo 1 1 Z_,6 el.AO I i G ' zz o o SZ 1.S3M I H r 8 dO , i 7z9Z1Sb'3 I _-----------_--1 *3 1 I z —S 1 I I F own -� SANDBANKS REDEVELOPMENT ,.w �� ' D SANDBANKS,LLC „,,,a p C0 Z DAVIDS01d '" Twol.DttwLuwvE ....".".,,,y4 oaen ENi01N6 RING AI.FT ARR NRPLEA FL 09100 _, tlMNWM l6wJm In ATTACHMENT B-REVISED &no Z r as«`n"�u e� 1Tmx 1 ti_.... - ..+..r.......La... CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN x 14 June 2018 550 West Place Naples,Florida 34108-2653 Re: Petition CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 Mr. Ray Bellows, County Liaison Collier County Planning Commission 3299 Tamiami Trail,East, Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Mr. Bellows: We are writing to express our objections to the above-referenced Planned Unit Development (PUD). Specific objections are enumerated below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on 05 June 2018 at the North Naples Church was inadequate and should be disqualified as a valid meeting for the approval process. Reasons for disqualification are presented below: • Verbal interaction(questions from attendees and answers from representatives) was frequently inaudible. a Answers to questions were, in some instances, assumptive(prior knowledge of proposed project details). • No hard-copy handouts were provided(e.g. plans,sketches,mock-ups of the proposed housing units). • Some answers were contradictory(e.g. traffic studies). 2. Housing Unit Density. The proposed housing unit density(375 units with at least 2 residents per unit resulting in a minimum of 2 POVs(privately owned vehicles) per unit is not in accordance with the original,historical zoning. 3. Housing Unit Height. The proposed height of planned housing units (4 stories over one story of parking giving a final height of 5 stories)is not in keeping with the current height restrictions of 40 feet for retail and 50 feet for commercial. The PUD calls for 60 feet with embellishments which theoretically could be 65 feet total. Most Pine Ridge owners' lots that back onto Goodlette-Frank Road and many interior lots were densely wooded in 1 the past providing a buffer against high winds(e.g. hurricanes,tornadoes). However, Hurricane Irma(2017)clearly demonstrated protection from dense stands of native trees can no longer be assumed present as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion Ratio(square footage of commercial housing). It remains unclear why it is necessary to include the conversion ratio in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to construct 375 housing units by a change of use, building on empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings,then that is the plan and no conversion ratio is necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units,them the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Genuine concern remains that at a later date this conversion ratio can be invoked to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (>375). 5. Increased Motor Vehicular Traffic. The above-referenced PUD application proposes adding an assumed 750-900 POVs for assumed for multiple trips per day and frequently at concentrated times of the day and at one of the busiest intersections in the area(Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road). Increased traffic will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection,but also Panther Lane, which is owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students,parents and teachers, North Naples church parishioners and the Village School students,parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Road to head south. Also,adversely affected will be Pine Ridge homeowners and guests exiting Center Street making U-turns to hed north on Goodlette-Frank Road,Autumn Woods homeowners and guests crossing Goodlette-Frank Road to turn south and everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pind Ridge Road heading south on Goodlette (4 lanes of traffic!),the Fire Station on Pine Ridge Road and anyone else attempting negotiate the already existing excessive volume of motor vehicular traffic on both roads. In summary,we are vehemently opposed to deviating from the existing carefully considered, discussed,and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. Our objections are to the proposed height and housing density and traffic density of the proposed project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of Collier County Commissioners. Overall, we believe that approval and execution of the project proposed the above-referenced project will exacerbate existing traffic issues in the area of the Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection,negatively impact property values and the currently existing highly-desirable lifestyle in Pine Ridge,and reduce the safety of current Pine Ridge residents. 2 In advance,please accept our thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Robert M. White,Sr.,Ph.D.,D.A.B.C.C.,C.H.R.M., LTC(Ret.,Army MSC). ,4-MZ-t• --/z/44L Vickie B. White • Robert M. White,Jr. 3 FinnTimothy From: KendallMarcia Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 8:35 AM To: BellowsRay;WeeksDavid; FinnTimothy; FaulknerSue Subject: FW: Letter of Objection Re: PUD& Referenced as GMPA PL20160002360/CP-2016-3 Attachments: 13 98_001.p d f This letter has been uploaded to both City View PL's PL20160002360 and PL20160002306.Handouts are being provided at this a.m.CCPC meeting by Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner. Respectfully, Marcia R. Kendall Senior Planner, Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239.252.2387 EFax: 239.252.6675 Email: Marcia.Kendall@colliercountvfl.gov Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at httva/bit.iv/ColiierZoning �► �,�r C�:cir�.rtGy Exceeding Expectations From: ITScanner Sent: Wednesday,June 20, 2018 5:43 PM To: FaulknerSue<Sue.Faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject:Attached Image Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday,June 20, 2018 1:11 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PI L20160002360-smith Mark, 2 3 9.2 52.4446 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: lizsmith0517@aol.com [mailto:lizsmith0517@aol.com] Sent:Wednesday,June 20, 2018 1:03 PM To: FialaDonna<Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov>;SolisAndy<Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov>; SaundersBurt <Burt.Saunders@colliercountyfl.gov>;TaylorPenny<Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov>; McDanielBill <Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov>; HomiakKaren<Karen.Homiak@colliercountyfl.gov>; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane<Diane.Ebert@colliercountyfl.gov>; FryerEdwin<Edwin.Fryer@colliercountyfl.gov>;StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov>; ski@colliergov.net;SchmittJoseph<Joseph.Schmitt@colliercountyfl.gov>; eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Pine Ridge Commons-PUD Application- PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360 Dear Respected Representatives: As homeowners within Pine Ridge Estates, we are extremely concerned with the potential impact of the subject petition, to our community. We know you all care about maintaining the health of our infrastructure and the resulting safety and well-being on local citizens. However, we are gravely concerned by the way this petition has come forward and is charging false and exaggerated upside to the community. We understand the developers of the subject application are requesting your approval to change the zoning to their financial benefit. However, the negative impact on our community is beyond comprehension due to the change in potential population density...whether it's our storm water, our traffic, our personal safety, our school over-crowding, and most importantly, our children and their safety. We in no way, support this rezoning. We rely on each one of you to protect our community and ensure we remain the premier"Naples" we are. We ask your support and your "no" vote,to ensure this application does not pass and is refused, revoked and dismissed. We trust you will support our community's position to protect us from the passing of this petition. When we vote for each of you as representatives, we trust you to keep our best interest at the core of your decision-making. Please don't let us down! Thank you in advance for your accountable stewardship, protecting the growth of our community. We look forward to your"no" votes to this petition. Ail the best to each of you, Joseph and Elizabeth Smith 367 Ridge Drive Naples, FL 34108 2 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday,June 20,2018 1:38 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360-von zwehl Mark, 2 3 9.2 52.4446 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:chris@vonzwehl.com [mailto:chris@vonzwehl.com] Sent:Wednesday,June 20, 2018 1:21 PM To: HomiakKaren<Karen.Homiak@colliercountyfl.gov>; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane <Diane.Ebert@colliercountyfl.gov>; FryerEdwin <Edwin.Fryer@colliercountyfl.gov>;StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov>; ChrzanowskiStan <Stan.Chrzanowski@colliercountyfl.gov>;SchmittJoseph <Joseph.Schmitt@colliercountyfl.gov>; eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: brett.blackledge@naplesnews.com; McDanielBill<Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov>;TaylorPenny <Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov>;TaylorPenny<Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov>; SolisAndy <Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov>; FialaDonna<Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Re: Pine Ridge Commons-PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 Dear Planning Commissioner Member, Re: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: •frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) •assumptive answers (assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or'mock-ups' of the proposed housing units •contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) •questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location - 375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units -4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40' for retail and 50'for commercial. PUD calls for 60' with embellishments (65'total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but 1 Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. Do not turn us in to the next Fort Lauderdale. 4. Conversion ratio-square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units, then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). Most of that space is unused at it is. So what additionally is the developer giving up??? Nothing. 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed)frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic), the Fire Station on Pine Ridge Rd -and the list goes on. You are planning to build a multi-deck parking garage at Clam Pass Park. This project does not take in to consideration that nor the major expansions happening up Goodlette-Frank at Arthrex and NCH Hospital's adjoining medical buildings going up. 6. Required open/green space standard of 25% has been totally disregarded. The 1.47 acre existing pond does not meet this requirement. IF the project is approved by you, we will ask the federal government and state of Florida to conduct a full NEPA review due to this willful violation of open/green space requirements.We may also reserve the right to hire an environmental/ land use planning law firm to challenge your decision should you approve this project that will permanently ruin the character of the neighborhood and surrounding area. We will ask them to take an in-depth review of every decision made on this and the original application by the different county departments and the planning commission. This area was meant to "Be Green," not five stories of cement buildings and parking garages. 7.Our schools will be unnecessarily overburdened, causing a drop in the quality of our children's education. We have children in Sea Gate Elementary, and in two years to start Pine Ridge Middle School. We moved to this neighborhood "For The Schools" and peace, quiet and country feeling. Undoubtably this project will pull down the school test scores and quality of our children's education. In summary, we do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed, and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. Our subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing traffic density and environmental short comings of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Respectfully, Christopher&Jacqueline von Zwehl Pine Ridge Estates Residents 2 TO: Collier County Planning Commission Collier County Board of Commissioners FROM: George B. Szczerbaniuk, M.D. Jaroslawa Szczerbaniuk, R.Ph. RE: We strongly oppose Pine Ridge Commons PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 DATE: June 19, 2018 Dear Commissioner: We are year-round residents of Pine Ridge Estates and strongly oppose the application to amend current zoning for the Pine Ridge Commons Planned Unit Development(PUD). PREFACE: On June 4, a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM)for the proposed Rural Lands West(RLW) development was held at Cornerstone United Methodist Church on Immokalee Road. We saw numerous signs in the area announcing the event. Moreover, an individual in bright clothing directed people to the correct entrance,even though Cornerstone United Methodist Church is not very large. Once inside,there were numerous brochures, handouts,and detailed poster boards of the proposed project. On June 5,a NIM for the application to amend current zoning for the Pine Ridge Commons PUD was held at North Naples Church on Goodlette-Frank Road. There were no signs in the area about the event. No one directed people to the correct entrance,even though North Naples Church is a large complex. Once inside, there were no brochures or handouts,while the few poster boards merely showed current maps of the area in question. In addition, comments made by those representing the developers were often confusing, incomplete,or unrelated to questions being asked. Currently,this 31 acres Pine Ridge Commons PUD is zoned for"Commercial Infill" (commercial and office space). The developers want the zoning amended to "Mixed Use" in order to allow 375 rental apartments up to 5 stories high, including ground level garages, with the potential to increase the number of apartments via a conversion. Why was the NIM for the Pine Ridge Commons PUD held off-season when so many residents are up north? Why was it held with so little publicity? Why did it provide so little information and so few answers? Clearly,this NIM was little more than a sham carried out to fulfill a requirement while providing a minimum amount of information to as few people as possible. OBJECTIONS: (1) SERIOUS TRAFFIC ISSUES: Three hundred seventy-five (375) residential apartments equate to 750 motorized vehicles on average, excluding visitors. The total could exceed 1,000 even without a conversion. -- The Pine Ridge/Goodlette-Frank intersection is already one of the busiest in Collier County and can't be widened. Considerably more traffic in that immediate area is the last thing it needs. -- North Naples Church parishioners and Village School parents/students/teachers enter and exit via Goodlette-Frank Road just north of the planned development. That is hard to do at times. Increased traffic will make it even more difficult. -- Pine Ridge Estates homeowners exiting at Center Street have to make a right (south)turn onto Goodlette-Frank Road. If they want to go north,they have to make a U-turn shortly thereafter—near the exit for North Naples Church. That is often hard to do. Increased traffic will make it even more difficult. 1 -- Because of increased traffic, more people will use Pine Ridge Estates as a "short cut"to go from Goodlette-Frank Road to US 41. The roads in Pine Ridge Estates are"public", but there is no reason its residents should have to put up with excess,speeding, non-local traffic just to enrich developers. -- Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Road to head south will be adversely affected by the increased traffic as they cross multiple lanes of traffic. - Northgate homeowners exiting on Goodlette-Frank Road will be adversely affected by the increased traffic, especially if they are trying to make a left turn across multiple lanes of traffic to head south or trying to make a right turn across multiple lanes of traffic in order to make a left(west)turn at Pine Ridge Road. -- Anyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Road and wishing to head south on Goodlette- Frank Road needs to cross 4 lanes of traffic. Increased traffic will make it even more difficult. -- Panther Lane is mentioned by the developers as a route into and out of the proposed residential areas, but it is actually a street for Pine Ridge Middle School. In fact, it is closed off(by gates)to through traffic much of the day. --At the NIM for the Pine Ridge Commons PUD,the developers said their"traffic study"was published December 5, 2017. They claimed not to know when the actual traffic data was collected, but it was before then. This hardly sounds like the"peak season"survey they claim it was. Many seasonal residents don't come down until well after December 5. (2) CRITICAL DELAYS IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE: North Collier Fire Rescue Station#40 is on the north side of Pine Ridge Road--just east of Goodlette-Frank Road and close to the intersection, It is next to the 31 acres of the planned residential development. The Fire Department can override traffic signals, but it has no magic trick to overcome delays caused by the considerably increased traffic the proposed development would bring to that area. Minutes,even seconds, count in life and death emergency situations. (3) SCHOOL SAFETY AND OVER-CROWDING ISSUES: Pine Ridge Middle School is right next to the planned residential development. Deadly school shootings--with resultant lockdowns of the surrounding areas-- are all too common now, as are sexual predators and child abductions. Does it make any sense at all to build 375 residential apartments, rentals no less,that close to a school? Moreover, enrollment at Pine Ridge Middle School already exceeds optimum levels. If the application to amend current zoning for the Pine Ridge Commons PUD is approved and you voted for it, are you willing to accept responsibility for adverse consequences? The proposed amendment.has many serious negatives—and no positives--for nearby residents and others traveling through that area. The developers of the Pine Ridge Commons PUD are entitled to the current zoning of their property. They are not entitled to zoning changes merely to satisfy their changing desires,especially when that would be to the detriment of the community at large. Please join us in opposing this petition. The public's lives,safety,and well-being will be affected by your vote. Thank you. Respectfully yours, George B. Szczerbaniuk, MD Jaroslawa Szczerbaniuk, RPh 181 Caribbean Road Naples, FL 34108-3408 2 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Tuesday,June 19, 2018 9:13 AM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW:WE STRONGLY OPPOSE PINE RIDGE COMMONS PUD PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360- szczerbaniuk Attachments: OPPOSE PINE RIDGE COMMONS PETITION.docx Mav*/ 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing, From:George Szczerbaniuk[mailto:oenophilist@msn.comj Sent:Tuesday,June 19, 2018 8:59 AM To:StrainMark<Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov>; HomiakKaren<Karen.Homiak@colliercountyfl.gov>; EbertDiane <Diane.Ebert@colliercountyfl.gov>; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; FryerEdwin <Edwin.Fryer@colliercountyfl.gov>; ChrzanowskiStan<Stan.Chrzanowski@colliercountyfl.gov>;SchmittJoseph <Joseph.Schmitt@colliercountyfl.gov>; eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject:WE STRONGLY OPPOSE PINE RIDGE COMMONS PUD PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 Dear Member of the Collier County Planning Commission: We are year-round residents of Pine Ridge Estates and strongly oppose Pine Ridge Commons PETITION CP- 2016-03/PL20160002360, which will be presented to you on June 21. It has many negatives --and no positives --for nearby residents and others traveling through that area. Please see attached document for detailed discussion. We respectfully ask you to join us in opposing this petition. Thank you. Yours truly, George B. Szczerbaniuk, MD 1 Jaroslawa Szczerbaniuk, RPh 181 Caribbean Road Naples, FL 34108-3408 2 FinnTimothy From: BellowsRay Sent: Monday,June 18, 2018 5:04 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons-jensen2 FYI Ray Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone:239.252.2463; Fax:239.252.6350 Exceeding expedtations,everyday! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gl/eXjvqT. Original Message From: Patty Jensen [mailto:pattyajensen@aol.com] Sent: Monday,June 18,2018 5:03 PM To: BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Pine Ridge Commons Dear Mr. Bellows: I do not support the request to change the approved Collier County Growth Management Plan at this location. I object to the proposed height as well as the housing and traffic densities slated for this project. Please do not approve this deviation from the original Plan. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Patricia A.Jensen 641 Hickory Road Naples, FL 34108 Sent from my iPad 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. FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Tuesday,June 19, 2018 8:20 AM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons jensenl Mark 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Original Message From: Patty Jensen [mailto:pattyajensen@aol.com] Sent: Monday,June 18, 2018 4:53 PM To:StrainMark<Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Pine Ridge Commons Dear Mr.Strain: I do not support the request to change the approved Collier County Growth Management Plan at this location. I object to the proposed height as well as the housing and traffic density slated for this project. Please do not approve this deviation from the original plan. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Patricia A.Jensen 641 Hickory Road Naples, FL 34108 Sent from my iPad 1 FinnTimothy From: BellowsRay Sent: Friday, June 15,2018 12:28 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: Fw: PINE RIDGE COMMONS-TALFORD1 Fyi From: Ric Talford<rictalford@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday,June 15,2018 12:03:47 PM To: BellowsRay Subject: PINE RIDGE COMMONS Dear Ray Re: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: •frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) •assumptive answers (assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or'mock-ups' of the proposed housing units •contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) •questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location - 375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units-4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40' for retail and 50' for commercial. PUD calls for 60' with embellishments (65'total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio - square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units, then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed)frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine 1 Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic), the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd-and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed, and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns Yours truly 2 Cchard.S. Tal¢o-rd. P.O. Box 110537 Naples,FL 34108 239-250-3456 rictalford@earthlink.net 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. 2 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent Friday,-June 15, 2018 11:33 AM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons-TALFORD Mark 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Ric Talford [mailto:rictalford@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday,June 15, 2018 11:16 AM To:StrainMark<Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Pine Ridge Commons Dear Mark Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: •frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) •assumptive answers (assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or`mock-ups' of the proposed housing units 'contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) 'questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location- 375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units-4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40' for retail and 50' for commercial. PUD calls for 60' with embellishments (65'total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio-square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units, then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 1 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed)frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic), the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd -and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed, and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns Yours truly Z ichor rd'S. Tatford, P.O. Box 110537 Naples,FL 34108 239-250-3456 rictalfordearthl ink,net 2 TO: Collier County Planning Commission Collier County Board of Commissioners FROM: George B. Szczerbaniuk, M.D. Jaroslawa Szczerbaniuk, R.Ph. RE: We strongly oppose Pine Ridge Commons PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 DATE: June 14, 2018 Dear Commissioner: We are year-round residents of Pine Ridge Estates and strongly oppose the application to amend current zoning for the Pine Ridge Commons PUD(Planned Unit Development). PREFACE: On June 4,a NIM (Neighborhood Information Meeting)for the proposed RLW(Rural Lands West) development was held at Cornerstone United Methodist Church on Immokalee Road. We saw numerous signs in the area announcing the event. Moreover, an individual in bright clothing directed people to the correct entrance, even though Cornerstone United Methodist Church is not very large. Once inside,there were numerous brochures, handouts,and detailed poster boards of the proposed project. On June 5,a NIM for the application to amend current zoning for the Pine Ridge Commons PUD was held at North Naples Church on Goodlette-Frank Road. There were no signs in the area about the event. No one directed people to the correct entrance, even though North Naples Church is a large complex. Once inside, there were no brochures or handouts, while the few poster boards merely showed current maps of the area in question. In addition,comments made by those representing the developers were often confusing, incomplete,or unrelated to questions being asked. Currently,this 31 acres Pine Ridge PUD is zoned for "Commercial Infill" (commercial and office space). The developers want the zoning amended to "Mixed Use" in order to allow 375 rental apartments up to 5 stories high, including ground level garages,with the potential to increase the number of apartments via a conversion. Why was the NIM for the Pine Ridge Commons PUD held off-season when so many residents are up north? Why was it held with so little publicity? Why did it provide so little information and so few answers? Clearly,this NIM was little more than a sham carried out to fulfill a requirement while providing a minimum amount of information to as few people as possible. OBJECTIONS: (1) SERIOUS TRAFFIC ISSUES: Three hundred seventy-five(375) residential apartments equate to 750 motorized vehicles on average, excluding visitors. The total could exceed 1,000 even without a conversion. -- The Pine Ridge/Goodlette-Frank intersection is already one of the busiest in Collier County and can't be widened. Considerably more traffic in that immediate area is the last thing it needs. -- North Naples Church parishioners and Village School parents/students/teachers enter and exit via Goodlette-Frank Road just north of the planned development. That is hard to do at times. Increased traffic will make it even more difficult. -- Pine Ridge Estates homeowners exiting at Center Street have to make a right(south)turn onto Goodlette-Frank Road. If they want to go north,they have to make a U-turn shortly thereafter—near the exit for North Naples Church. That is often hard to do. Increased traffic will make it even more difficult. 1 -- Because of increased traffic, more people will use Pine Ridge Estates as a "short cut"to go from Goodlette-Frank Road to US 41. The roads in Pine Ridge Estates are "public", but there is no reason its residents should have to put up with excess, non-local,speeding traffic just to enrich developers. -- Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Road to head south will be adversely affected by the increased traffic as they cross multiple lanes of traffic. -- Northgate homeowners exiting on Goodlette-Frank Road will be adversely affected by the increased traffic, especially if they are trying to make a left turn across multiple lanes of traffic to head south or trying to make a right turn across multiple lanes of traffic in order to make a left(west)turn at Pine Ridge Road. -- Anyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Road and wishing to head south on Goodlette- Frank Road needs to cross 4 lanes of traffic. Increased traffic will make it even more difficult. --Panther Lane is mentioned by the developers as a route into and out of the proposed residential areas, but it is actually a street for Pine Ridge Middle School. In fact, it is closed off(by gates)to through traffic much of the day. --At the NIM for the Pine Ridge Commons PUD,the developers said their"traffic study"was published December 5, 2017. They claimed not to know when the actual traffic data was collected, but it was before then. This hardly sounds like the"peak season" survey they claim it was. Many seasonal residents don't come down until well after December 5. (2) CRITICAL DELAYS IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE: There is a North Collier Fire Station on the north side of Pine Ridge Road just east of Goodlette-Frank Road. It is close to the intersection and right next to the 31 acres of the planned residential development. The Fire Department can override traffic signals, but it has no magic trick to overcome delays caused by the considerably increased traffic the proposed development would bring to that area. Minutes, even seconds, count in life and death emergency situations. (3) SCHOOL SAFETY AND OVER-CROWDING ISSUES: Pine Ridge Middle School is right next to the planned residential development. Deadly school shootings--with resultant lockdowns of the surrounding areas-- are all too common now, as are sexual predators and child abductions. Does it make any sense at all to build 375 residential apartments, rentals no less,that close to a school? Moreover, enrollment at Pine Ridge Middle School already exceeds optimum levels. If the application to amend current zoning for the Pine Ridge Commons PUD is approved and you voted for it,are you willing to accept responsibility for adverse consequences? The proposed amendment has many serious negatives—and no positives--for nearby residents and anyone else traveling through that area. The developers of the Pine Ridge Commons PUD are entitled to the current zoning of their property. They are not entitled to zoning changes merely to satisfy their changing desires,especially when that would be to the detriment of the community at large. Please join us in opposing this petition. The public's lives and safety will be affected by your vote. Thank you. Respectfully yours, George B.Szczerbaniuk, MD Jaroslawa Szczerbaniuk, RPh 181 Caribbean Road Naples, FL 34108-3408 2 At-Large Environmental :Joseph Schmitt JosephSchmitt@colliergov.net School Board (Non-Voting) :Thomas Eastman eastmath@collierschools.com County Liaison : Ray Bellows RayBellows@colliergov.net Collier County Board of Commissioners District 1: Donna Fiala: DonnaFiala@colliergov.net District 2:Andy Solis, Esq AndySolis@colliergov.net District 3: Burt Saunders BurtSaunders@colliergov.net District 4: Penny Taylor PennyTaylor@colliergov.net District 5:William L McDaniel,Jr BiliMcDaniel@colliergov.net 3 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday,June 13, 2018 2:20 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360-edlund Mark. 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing From: Ross Edlund [mailto:ROSSEDLUND@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday,June 13, 2018 2:00 PM To: HomiakKaren<Karen.Homiak@colliercountyfl.gov>; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane <Diane.Ebert@colliercountyfl.gov>; FryerEdwin<Edwin.Fryer@colliercountyfl.gov>;StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov>; ChrzanowskiStan<Stan.Chrzanowski@colliercountyfl.gov>;SchmittJoseph <Joseph.Schmitt@colliercountyfl.gov>;eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; FialaDonna<Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov>;SolisAndy<Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov>;SaundersBurt <Burt.Saunders@colliercountyfl.gov>;TaylorPenny<Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov>; McDanielBill <Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360 Dear Commissioners, I strongly object to the proposed rezoning my neighborhood of Pine Ridge to allow for the construction of approximately 400 units of apartment housing. We are residents of Pine Ridge for nearly 20 years-- my wife and I chose the community for its rural style living, the fact it is not gated, and for its spacious, non-intrusive life style. It is a unique residential area and its character does not deserve to be altered by changing the zoning and adding increased density. We hopefully would all be able to enjoy the community we select to make our home and not to have its character detrimentally altered by developers' profit motive. Leave Pine Ridge the way it is. Sincerely, 1 Ross Edlund, CEO Skillets Restaurants 5461 Airport Rd N Naples, FL 34109 Residential address: 220 Hickory Road, 34108 2 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday,June 13, 2018 11:32 AM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons-CHUR2 Mark 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. Original Message From: Marni Chur[mailto:marnichur@yahoo.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 12, 2018 5:37 PM To:StrainMark<Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Pine Ridge Commons Dear Mark, Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application-PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: *frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) *assumptive answers(assumed prior knowledge of project details) *no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or'mock-ups'of the proposed housing units *contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) *questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location-375 housing units are proposed,with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height-Proposed height of planned housing units-4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40'for retail and 50'for commercial. PUD calls for 60'with embellishments(65'total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio-square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings,then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the 1 plan is to build less than 375 housing units,then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding(assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed)frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane(owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south,Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd,Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south,everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette(across 4 lanes of traffic),the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd-and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed,and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission;and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns Yours truly, Marni and Neil Chur 700 Myrtle Road 2 FinnTimothy From: BellowsRay Sent: Tuesday,June 12,2018 6:14 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons-CHUR FYI Ray Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone: 239.252.2463; Fax:239.252.6350 Exceeding expedtations,everyday! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gl/eXjvqT. Original Message From: Marni Chur[mailto:marnichur@yahoo.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 12,2018 5:40 PM To: BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Pine Ridge Commons Dear Mr. Bellows, Re: Pine Ridge Commons-PUD Application-PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application,as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: •frequently inaudible(questions from attendees and answers from representatives) sassumptive answers(assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans,sketches or'mock-ups'of the proposed housing units *contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) *questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location-375 housing units are proposed,with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height-Proposed height of planned housing units-4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40'for retail and 50'for commercial. PUD calls for 60'with embellishments(65'total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio-square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings,then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units,then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding(assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed)frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd,Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette(across 4 lanes of traffic),the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd-and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed,and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height,and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission;and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns Yours truly, Marni and Neil Chur 700 Myrtle Road 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. 2 FinnTimothy From: BellowsRay Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 5:37 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons FYI Rag Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone:239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 Exceeding expedtations,everyday! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https:1/goo,taleXiv4T. From: mklww@aol.com [mailto:mklww@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 12, 2018 12:33 PM Subject: Pine Ridge Commons Dear All of the above: Re: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360 I/we believe it is extremely important to remind members of the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners that a property owner is entitled to the current zoning of their property! The zoning laws serve all community members. Developers have no right to expect the County Commissioners to change the zoning for the benefit of the Developer and to the detriment of community members. Additionally, the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP)was put in place to assure our comm unity grows and develops in a responsible manner. The 31 acre property in question has already been re-zoned once before at the request of the Developer. The original zoning was Rural Agricultural and Residential Single Family (RSF-3). RSF-3 permits three dwelling units per acre while the Agricultural Zoning permits one dwelling unit per five acres. A zoning change was granted (December 14, 1999)to allow retail and commercial use at this location. We do not believe that an exception to the GMP and zoning for this site should be granted for a second time. I/we, the community members trust the Planning Commission and County Commissioners to follow the GMP- not to ignore and change it simply to meet the changing desires of Developers. yours truly Linda and Jerry Stawski, 173 Tupelo RD,Pine Ridge Estates 1 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. 2 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Tuesday,June 12, 2018 3:29 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Proposed Pine Ridge Commons PUD Zoning-king2 Mark/ 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are pubLic records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Benjamin King [mailto:floridaseller@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 12, 2018 7:45 AM To: HomiakKaren<Karen.Homiak@colliercountyfl.gov>; Patrick DearbornLLC<pdearborn@johnrwood.com>; EbertDiane <Diane.Ebert@colliercountyfl.gov>; FryerEdwin <Edwin.Fryer@colliercountyfl.gov>;Strain Mark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov>; ChrzanowskiStan<Stan.Chrzanowski@colliercountyfl.gov>;SchmittJoseph <Joseph.Schmitt@colliercountyfl.gov>;eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; FialaDonna <Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov>; SolisAndy<Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov>;SaundersBurt <Burt.Saunders@colliercountyfl.gov>;TaylorPenny<Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov>; McDanielBill <Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov>; Pine Ridge<prca@pineridge34108.com> Subject: Proposed Pine Ridge Commons PUD Zoning Proposed Pine Ridge Commons PUD Comments To the Collier County Planning Commission &the Collier County Board of Commissioners We have thoroughly enjoyed being full time residents of Naples for over the past 20+ years. It has been a special place for us to live. We realize growth is inevitable, but in the last few years it has really accelerated at an unhealthy pace. So many new large developments have been built or are being built. This has resulted in traffic issues so bad that we avoid many areas during the busy season. The last season has been by far the worst. The infrastructure has to catch up with the existing growth. The Collier County Growth Management Plan was put in place to assure our community grows and develops in a responsible manner. We feel that granting a zoning variance on this property to build 375 housing units at a height of 5 stories on this property is not the right decision to make. Benjamin & Kathleen King 56 Myrtle Rd. Naples, FL 34108 1 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. 2 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Tuesday,June 12, 2018 3:29 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360-korunda2 Mark/ 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:Zdenko Korunda [mailto:zkorunda@yahoo.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 12, 2018 6:40 AM To:Z Korunda<zkorunda@yahoo.com> Cc: Nena Korunda<korundamd@yahoo.com> Subject:Pine Ridge Commons-PUD Application-PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360 Dear Collier County Planning Commission Re : Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP- 2016-03/P! L20160002360 We believe it is extremely important to remind members of the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners that a property owner is entitled to the current zoning of their property! The zoning laws serve all community members. Developers have no right to expect the County Commissioners to change the zoning for the benefit of the Developer and to the detriment of community members. Additionally, the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) was put in place to assure our community grows and develops in a responsible manner. The 31 acre property in question has already been re- zoned once before at the request of the Developer. The original zoning was Rural Agricultural and Residential Single Family (RSF-3) . RSF-3 permits three dwelling units per acre while the Agricultural Zoning permits one dwelling unit per five acres. A zoning change was granted (December 14, 1999) to allow retail and commercial use at this location . We do not believe that an exception to the GMP and zoning for this site should be granted for a second time. We, the community members trust the Planning Commission and County Commissioners to follow the GMP - not to ignore and change it simply to meet the changing desires of Developers. Respectfully Zdenko Korunda, M . D. Nena Korunda, M . D. 266 Ridge Dr Naples FL 34108 Phone : 239-213-8038 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. 2 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 3:29 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360-grant2 Mark/ 239.252.4446 Under FLorida Law, e-maiL addresses are pubLic records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a pubLic records request, do not send electronic matt to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:Susan Grant [mailto:scgrantcpa@gmail.com] Sent: Monday,June 11, 2018 7:28 PM To:StrainMark<Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application -PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360 Dear Planning Commissioner Strain: We have been residents of Pine Ridge Estates for over 30 years, and we moved here for the open space, large lots, and family atmosphere. It is turning into gated and locked lots, cut-through traffic, and car break-ins on weekends. Please do not contribute to more cut-through traffic and congestion! We believe it is extremely important to remind members of the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners that we, as long-time property owners, are entitled to the current zoning of our property! We do not appreciate developers coming in Pine Ridge or around the corner, splitting up lots or changing the zoning for the developers' personal financial gain. The zoning laws serve all community members. Developers have no right to expect the County Commissioners to change the zoning for the benefit of the Developer and to the detriment of community members. Additionally, the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP)was put in place to assure our community grows and develops in a responsible manner. The 31 acre property in question has already been re-zoned once before at the request of the Developer. The original zoning was Rural Agricultural and Residential Single Family (RSF-3). RSF-3 permits three dwelling units per acre while the Agricultural Zoning permits one dwelling unit per five acres. A zoning change was granted (December 14, 1999)to allow retail and commercial use at this location. We do not believe that an exception to the GMP and zoning for this site should be granted for a second time. We, the community members, trust the Planning Commission and County Commissioners to follow the GMP- not to ignore and change it simply to meet the changing desires of greedy Developers. This is paradise! Do not turn us into Miami please! Yours truly, Gary W. and Susan C. Grant 151 Caribbean Road Pine Ridge Estates 1 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. 2 FinnTimothy From: BellowsRay Sent: Tuesday,June 12, 2018 8:59 AM To: FinnTimothy Cc: DeselemKay Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360-grant Ray Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone:239.252.2463; Fax:239.252.6350 Co er Corlaty Exceeding expedtations,everyday? Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at httpsalgoa.al/eXivcT. From:Susan Grant[mailto:scgrantcpa@gmail.com] Sent: Monday,June 11,2018 7:35 PM To: BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application-PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360 Dear Mr. Bellows: We have been residents of Pine Ridge Estates for over 30 years, and we moved here for the open space, large lots, and family atmosphere. It is turning into gated and locked lots, cut-through traffic, and car break-ins on weekends. Please do not contribute to more cut-through traffic and congestion! We believe it is extremely important to remind members of the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners that we, as long-time property owners, are entitled to the current zoning of our property! We do not appreciate developers coming in Pine Ridge or around the corner, splitting up lots or changing the zoning for the developers' personal financial gain. The zoning laws serve all community members. Developers have no right to expect the County Commissioners to change the zoning for the benefit of the Developer and to the detriment of community members. Additionally, the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP)was put in place to assure our community grows and develops in a responsible manner. The 31 acre property in question has already been re-zoned once before at the request of the Developer. The original zoning was Rural Agricultural and Residential Single Family (RSF-3). RSF-3 permits three dwelling units per acre while the Agricultural Zoning permits one dwelling unit per five acres. A zoning change was granted (December 14, 1999)to allow retail and commercial use at this location. We do not believe that an exception to the GMP and zoning for this site should be granted for a second time. We, the community members, trust the Planning Commission and County Commissioners to follow the GMP- not to ignore and change it simply to meet the changing desires of greedy Developers. This is paradise! Do not turn us 1 into Miami please! Yours truly, Gary W. and Susan C. Grant 151 Caribbean Road Pine Ridge Estates 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. 2 FinnTimothy From: BellowsRay Sent: Tuesday,June 12, 2018 8:54 AM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Proposed Pine Ridge Commons PUD Zoning FYI Racy Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone:239.252.2463;Fax:239.252.6350 Ca ►- cCrt4l ty Exceeding expedtations,everyday! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.pl/eXlvcT. From: Benjamin King [mailto:floridaseller@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 12, 2018 7:45 AM To: HomiakKaren <Karen.Homiak@colliercountyfl.gov>; Patrick DearbornLLC<pdearborn@johnrwood.com>; EbertDiane <Diane.Ebert@colliercountyfl.gov>; FryerEdwin<Edwin.Fryer@colliercountyfl.gov>;StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov>;ChrzanowskiStan<Stan.Chrzanowski@colliercountyfl.gov>;SchmittJoseph <Joseph.Schmitt@colliercountyfl.gov>;eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; FialaDonna <Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov>;SolisAndy<Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov>;SaundersBurt <Burt.Saunders@colliercountyfl.gov>;TaylorPenny<Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov>; McDanielBill <Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov>; Pine Ridge<prca@pineridge34108.com> Subject: Proposed Pine Ridge Commons PUD Zoning Proposed Pine Ridge Commons PUD Comments To the Collier County Planning Commission &the Collier County Board of Commissioners We have thoroughly enjoyed being full time residents of Naples for over the past 20+years. It has been a special place for us to live. We realize growth is inevitable, but in the last few years it has really accelerated at an unhealthy pace. So many new large developments have been built or are being built. This has resulted in traffic issues so bad that we avoid many areas during the busy season. The last season has been by far the worst. The infrastructure has to catch up with the existing growth. The Collier County Growth Management Plan was put in place to assure our community grows and develops in a responsible manner. We feel that granting a zoning variance 1 on this property to build 375 housing units at a height of 5 stories on this property is not the right decision to make. Benjamin & Kathleen King 56 Myrtle Rd. Naples, FL 34108 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 2 FinnTimothy From: BellowsRay Sent: Tuesday,June 12, 2018 8:57 AM To: FinnTimothy Cc: DeselemKay Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360 FYI Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone:239.252.2463; Fax:239.252.6350 County Exceeding expedtations,everyday! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gi/eXivgT. From:Zdenko Korunda [mailto:zkorunda@yahoo.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 12, 2018 6:40 AM To:Z Korunda <zkorunda@yahoo.com> Cc: Nena Korunda<korundamd@yahoo.com> Subject: Pine Ridge Commons-PUD Application-PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360 Dear Collier County Planning Commission Re : Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP- 2016-03/P! L20160002360 We believe it is extremely important to remind members of the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners that a property owner is entitled to the current zoning of their property! 1 The zoning laws serve all community members. Developers have no right to expect the County Commissioners to change the zoning for the benefit of the Developer and to the detriment of community members. Additionally, the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) was put in place to assure our community grows and develops in a responsible manner. The 31 acre property in question has already been re- zoned once before at the request of the Developer. The original zoning was Rural Agricultural and Residential Single Family (RSF-3) . RSF-3 permits three dwelling units per acre while the Agricultural Zoning permits one dwelling unit per five acres. A zoning change was granted (December 14, 1999) to allow retail and commercial use at this location . We do not believe that an exception to the GMP and zoning for this site should be granted for a second time. We, the community members trust the Planning Commission and County Commissioners to follow the GMP - not to ignore and change it simply to meet the changing desires of Developers. Respectfully Zdenko Korunda, M . D. Nena Korunda, M . D. 266 Ridge Dr Naples FL 34108 Phone : 239-213-8038 2 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. 3 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Monday,June 11, 2018 6:07 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons(Goodlette and Pine Ridge) For typical distribution AllairkJ 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: myriam colson [mailto:colsonmyriam@gmail.com] Sent:Saturday,June 09, 2018 4:02 AM To: StrainMark<Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Pine Ridge Commons(Goodlette and Pine Ridge) Dear Mr Strain, Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03JPL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: 'frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) 'assumptive answers (assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or`mock-ups' of the proposed housing units 'contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) •questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location - 375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units-4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40'for retail and 50'for commercial. PUD calls for 60'with embellishments (65' total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio-square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units, then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 1 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed)frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd,Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic), the Fire Station on Pine Ridge Rd -and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed, and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns Yours truly Myriam Colson coIsonmyriam@email.com 0:239-591-0303-M:239-293-7030^' F:239-591-1976 181 Carica Road, Naples, FL,34108-2616 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. 2 FinnTimothy From: ChrzanowskiStan Sent: Monday,June 11, 2018 12:52 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: Re: Proposed Pine Ridge Commons PUD Tim -thanks much. Is it my imagination or have I seen this e-mail somewhere before- maybe more than once? From: FinnTimothy Sent: Monday,June 11, 2018 11:26 AM To: HomiakKaren;jodiebert@reagan.com; FryerEdwin;StrainMark; pdearborn@johnrwood.com;ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph;eastmath@collierschools.com Cc: PuigJudy; AshtonHeidi; Richard Yovanovich;Wayne Arnold Subject: FW: Proposed Pine Ridge Commons PUD Hi all, I'm forwarding a public email regarding Pine Ridge Commons PUD (PUDA) PL20160002306. Timothy Finn,AICP Principal Planner C.,orrfer County Zoning Division NOTE:New Email Address as of 12/09/2017: Timothy.Finn@colliercountyflgov 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.4312 Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at htto://bit.ly/Collierzoning. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: BellowsRay Sent: Monday,June 11, 2018 10:54 AM To: FinnTimothy<Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: DeselemKay<Kay.Deselem@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: FW: Proposed Pine Ridge Commons PUD FYI Ely 1 Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Zoning Division -Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone:239.252.2463; Fax:239.252.6350 Cvf er Coscnty Exceeding expedtations,everyday! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at httos://goo.gl/eXivgT. From: Benjamin King [mailto:floridaseller@gmail.com] Sent: Monday,June 11, 2018 10:52 AM To: BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Proposed Pine Ridge Commons PUD My name is Benjamin King. My wife, Kathleen King and I have lived at 56 Myrtle Rd. in Pine Ridge for over 20 years. We both attended the June 5, 2018 Meeting and agree with all the comments listed below. The meeting was really was sub-standard and should be disqualified. The density of this development and its impact on already existing traffic issues on Goodlette and Pine Ridge roads particularly in season really needs to be addressed. Dear Ray Bellows Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: •frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) •assumptive answers (assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or`mock-ups' of the proposed housing units 'contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) •questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location - 375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units -4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40' for retail and 50'for commercial. PUD calls for 60'with embellishments (65'total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio-square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units, then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 2 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed)750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed)frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic), the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd -and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed, and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns Yours truly Benjamin and Kathleen King 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. 3 FinnTimothy From: BellowsRay Sent: Monday,June 11, 2018 10:54 AM To: FinnTimothy Cc: DeselemKay Subject: FW: Proposed Pine Ridge Commons PUD FYI Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone:239.252.2463; Fax:239.252.6350 Co er C°ux cty Exceeding expedtations,everyday! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.glieXivoT. From: Benjamin King [mailto:floridaseller@gmail.com] Sent: Monday,June 11, 2018 10:52 AM To: BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Proposed Pine Ridge Commons PUD My name is Benjamin King. My wife, Kathleen King and I have lived at 56 Myrtle Rd. in Pine Ridge for over 20 years. We both attended the June 5, 2018 Meeting and agree with all the comments listed below. The meeting was really was sub-standard and should be disqualified. The density of this development and its impact on already existing traffic issues on Goodlette and Pine Ridge roads particularly in season really needs to be addressed. Dear Ray Bellows Re: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: 'frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) 'assumptive answers (assumed prior knowledge of project details) .no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or`mock-ups' of the proposed housing units •contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) 'questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location -375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning i 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units -4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40'for retail and 50' for commercial. PUD calls for 60' with embellishments (65'total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio-square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units,then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed)frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic), the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd -and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed, and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns Yours truly Benjamin and Kathleen King 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. 2 FinnTimothy From: BellowsRay Sent: Monday,June 11, 2018 8:46 AM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360-devito FYI ,Raj Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone:239.252.2463; Fax:239.252.6350 Col�ier C'.crra: =ty Exceeding expedtations,everyday! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https:/igoo.cl/eXjvciT. From:Susan DeVito [mailto:sdevito64@me.com] Sent: Friday,June 08, 2018 9:43 PM To: HomiakKaren<Karen.Homiak@colliercountyfl.gov>; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane <Diane.Ebert@colliercountyfl.gov>; FryerEdwin <Edwin.Fryer@colliercountyfl.gov>;Strain Mark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov>; ChrzanowskiStan<Stan.Chrzanowski@colliercountyfl.gov>;SchmittJoseph <Joseph.Schmitt@colliercountyfl.gov>;eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; FialaDonna<Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov>;SolisAndy<Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov>;SaundersBurt <Burt.Saunders@colliercountyfl.gov>;TaylorPenny<Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov>; McDanielBill <Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application-PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 To Whom It May Concern Re: Pine Ridge Commons-PUD Application- PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice our concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application,as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: *frequently inaudible(questions from attendees and answers from representatives) *assumptive answers(assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans,sketches or'mock-ups'of the proposed housing units *contradictory answers were given(e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) •questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. 1 The community came to be informed,we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density-Proposed housing unit density at this location-375 housing units are proposed,with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height-Proposed height of planned housing units-4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40'for retail and 50'for commercial. PUD calls for 60'with embellishments(65'total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio-square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings,then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units,then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units(more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding(assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day,and (assumed) frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane(owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd,Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette(across 4 lanes of traffic),the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd-and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered,discussed,and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height,and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission;and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration regarding this enormous potential mistake Susan and Andrew DeVito 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. 2 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Friday,June 08,2018 4:04 PM To: FinnTimothy Cc: AshtonHeidi Subject: FW: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 fyi Mark, 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Robert Eardley [mailto:robert@swflorida-Iaw.com] Sent: Friday,June 08, 2018 3:57 PM To: HomiakKaren <Karen.Homiak@colliercountyfl.gov>; Dearbornpdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane <Diane.Ebert@colliercountyfl.gov>; FryerEdwin<Edwin.Fryer@colliercountyfl.gov>;StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov>;ChrzanowskiStan <Stan.Chrzanowski@colliercountyfl.gov>;SchmittJoseph <Joseph.Schmitt@colliercountyfl.gov>;eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; FialaDonna <Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov>; SolisAndy<Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov>;SaundersBurt <Burt.Saunders@colliercountyfl.gov>;TaylorPenny<Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov>; McDanielBill <Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Holly Eardley(hollistereardley@gmail.com)<hollistereardley@gmail.com>; Peter Pytlik <Peter@warehouseservices.net>;jwoods@lawfirmnaples.com;Stuart Miller<smiller@johnrwood.com> Subject: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, I am a Pine Ridge resident and am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above application. 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. 2. Density-Proposed housing unit density at this location -375 housing units are proposed,with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height-Proposed height of planned housing units-4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40'for retail and 50'for commercial. PUD calls for 60'with embellishments(65'total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio-square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings,then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units,then the application process should start once their business model is 1 defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day,and (assumed)frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd,Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic),the Fire Station on Pine Ridge Rd. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate from Collier County Growth Management Plan. Thank you for your consideration. ROBERT H.EARDLEY,Esq.,LL.M. Board Certified Wills, Trusts&Estates Lawyer Law Office of Robert H.Eardley,P.A. 1415 Panther Lane,Suite 221 Naples,FL 34109 Office:(239)591-6776 Fax:(239)591-6777 Email:robert@swtlorida-law.com Web:www.swflorida-law.com The information contained in this transmission may be attorney-client privileged and confidential.It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by e-mail or by telephone collect at(239)591-6776 and delete the original message.Thank you. 2 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Friday,June 08, 2018 3:12 PM To: FinnTimothy Cc: AshtonHeidi Subject: FW: PUD Fyi, noticed you were not copied. 14t ctvk' 23 9.2 52.4446 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:Zlad Shahla MD MBA FACP [mailto:drshahlall@comcast.net] Sent: Friday,June 08, 2018 3:03 PM To: HomiakKaren<Karen.Homiak@colliercountyfl.gov>; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane <Diane.Ebert@colliercountyfl.gov>; FryerEdwin<Edwin.Fryer@colliercountyfl.gov>;StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov>;ChrzanowskiStan<Stan.Chrzanowski@colliercountyfl.gov>;SchmittJoseph <Joseph.Schmitt@colliercountyfl.gov>; eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: FialaDonna <Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov>;SolisAndy<Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov>;SaundersBurt <Burt.Saunders@colliercountyfl.gov>;TaylorPenny<Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov>; McDanielBill <Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Ziad Shahla MD '<drshahlall@comcast.net>;jshahla1527@gmail.com Subject: PUD Caroline Martino &the PRCA Board Dear members Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: •frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) •assumptive answers (assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or'mock-ups' of the proposed housing units -contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) •questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location - 375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units -4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40'for retail and 50'for commercial. PUD calls for 60' with embellishments (65'total?). Most of Pine 1 Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio- square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units, then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed)frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic), the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd-and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed, and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns Yours truly Dr.Z Shahla and Jana Shahla 2 FinnTimothy From: ChrzanowskiStan Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 8:05 AM To: FinnTimothy Cc: AhmadJay Subject: Re: Pine Ridge and Airport Roads - Do not change Land Use Ordinance to permit this project Just out of curiosity-which intersection in Collier County holds the fatality record? (Jay-see letter below) From: FinnTimothy Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 4:22 PM To: HomiakKaren;jodiebert@reagan.com; FryerEdwin; StrainMark; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph;eastmath@collierschools.com Cc: PuigJudy; AshtonHeidi; Richard Yovanovich;Wayne Arnold Subject: FW: Pine Ridge and Airport Roads-Do not change Land Use Ordinance to permit this project Hi all, I'm forwarding a public email regarding Pine Ridge Commons PUD(PUDA) PL20160002306. Timothy Finn,AICP Principal Planner CAT County Zoning Division NOTE:New Email Address as of 12/09/2017: Timothv.Finn@colliercourityfl.gov 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104 Phone:239.252.4312 Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bitiy/CoiiierZoning. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:StrainMark Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 4:00 PM To: FinnTimothy<Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: FW: Pine Ridge and Airport Roads-Do not change Land Use Ordinance to permit this project Please distribute as typical. Mark/ 239.2 52.41.146 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:Julie Yamin [mailto:julieyamin@outlook.com] Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 3:58 PM To:SchmittJoseph<Joseph.Schmitt@colliercountyfi.gov>;eastmath@collierschools.com; ChrzanowskiStan <Stan.Chrzanowski@coUiercountyfl.gov>;StrainMark<Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov>; FryerEdwin <Edwin.Fryer@coliiercountyfl.gov>; EbertDiane<Diane.Ebert@colliercountyfl,gov>; pdearborn@johnrwood.com Subject: Pine Ridge and Airport Roads- Do not change Land Use Ordinance to permit this project Please to not change the land use ordinance to permit this project - 275000 sqft of Commercial and up to 375 Multi-Family Units. Traffic on the most dangerous (most fatal car accidents in Collier County) intersection would skyrocket and create a myriad of problems. Vote no! Julie Kay Yamin 745 High Pines Drive Naples, Florida 34103 Sent from Outlook 2 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Thursday, May 17,2018 4:00 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Pine Ridge and Airport Roads - Do not change Land Use Ordinance to permit this project Please distribute as typical. Marr. 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:Julie Yamin [mailto:julieyamin@outlook.com] Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 3:58 PM To:SchmittJoseph<Joseph.Schmitt@colliercountyfl.gov>; eastmath@collierschools.com;ChrzanowskiStan <Stan.Chrzanowski@colliercountyfl.gov>;StrainMark<Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov>; FryerEdwin <Edwin.Fryer@colliercountyfl.gov>; EbertDiane<Diane.Ebert@colliercountyfl.gov>; pdearborn@johnrwood.com Subject: Pine Ridge and Airport Roads- Do not change Land Use Ordinance to permit this project Please to not change the land use ordinance to permit this project - 275000 sqft of Commercial and up to 375 Multi-Family Units. Traffic on the most dangerous (most fatal car accidents in Collier County) intersection would skyrocket and create a myriad of problems. Vote no! Julie Kay Yamin 745 High Pines Drive Naples, Florida 34103 Sent from Outlook 1 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 1:19 PM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Development on corner of Pineridge and Goodlette Frank Road Please distribute as typical. Mark 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Original Message From: Nicol Sargent [mailto:per826@gmail.com] Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2018 1:18 PM To:eastmath@collierschools.com;ChrzanowskiStan <Stan.Chrzanowski@colliercountyfl.gov>; StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov>; FryerEdwin<Edwin.Fryer@colliercountyfl.gov>; EbertDiane <Diane.Ebert@colliercountyfl.gov>; pdearborn@johnrwood.com Subject: Development on corner of Pineridge and Goodlette Frank Road I live in the Club of Naples/Big Cypress neighborhood. Due to the fact that I will be out of town, I am writing to voice my objection to any proposed housing on the above mentioned corner. This intersection is already so congested that during season, it takes forever to exit or enter Northgate. Trying to exit off of Solana takes almost as long given the fact that the light is about 2 seconds long on Solana. I realize housing is needed but this corner is not the place for it. Thank you. Nicol Sargent 1 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 10:24 AM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Proposed Project for Pine Ridge &Goodlette-Frank- PLEASE VOTE NO Please distribute as typical. Marr 2 3 9.2 52.4446 Under Florida Law;e-mail addresses are public records,If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Nancy Kahn [mailto:dearnancykahn@gmail.com] Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2018 10:17 AM To: Kahn Nancy<dearnancykahn@gmail.com> Subject: Proposed Project for Pine Ridge &Goodlette-Frank-PLEASE VOTE NO Hello, Please do not permit the project proposed for the corner of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road go forward. It would be 275,000 sq ft of Commercial and allow up to 375 Multi-Family Units. If you THINK WE HAVE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS NOW just think what this could bring. ADDING THIS AMOUNT OF "APARTMENTS" WITH THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THAT NUMBER VIA A CONVERSION is very concerning. Please vote no. We do not need any more commercial property in this area of Collier County. Thank you for listening. Nancy Kahn, 1854 Winding Oaks Way, Naples FL 34109. 1 FinnTimothy From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 10:25 AM To: FinnTimothy Subject: FW: Proposed Project for Pine Ridge &Goodlette-Frank - PLEASE VOTE NO Please distribute as typical. Marl/ 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Kahn Jeff[mailto:jeffkahnmd@gmail.com] Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2018 10:19 AM To: Kahn Jeffrey<jeffkahnmd@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Proposed Project for Pine Ridge &Goodlette-Frank- PLEASE VOTE NO Hello, Please do not permit the project proposed for the corner of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road to go forward. It would be 275,000 sq ft of Commercial and allow up to 375 Multi-Family Units. If you THINK WE HAVE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS NOW just think what this could bring. Please don't give in to big business. ADDING THIS AMOUNT OF"APARTMENTS" WITH THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THAT NUMBER VIA A CONVERSION is very concerning. Please vote no. We do not need any more commercial property in this area of Collier County. Thank you for listening. Nancy Kahn, 1854 Winding Oaks Way, Naples FL 34109. 14 June 2018 550 West Place Naples,Florida 34108-2653 11E T g 57 7 JUN 18 2018 Re: Petition CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 $y Ms.Donna Fiala Collier County Board of Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail, East, Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Ms. Fiala: We are writing to express our objections to the above-referenced Planned Unit Development (PUD). Specific objections are enumerated below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on 05 June 2018 at the North Naples Church was inadequate and should be disqualified as a valid meeting for the approval process. Reasons for disqualification are presented below: • Verbal interaction(questions from attendees and answers from representatives) was frequently inaudible. • Answers to questions were, in some instances,assumptive(prior knowledge of proposed project details). • No hard-copy handouts were provided(e.g. plans,sketches,mock-ups of the proposed housing units). • Some answers were contradictory(e.g. traffic studies). 2. Housing Unit Density. The proposed housing unit density(375 units with at least 2 residents per unit resulting in a minimum of 2 POVs(privately owned vehicles) per unit is not in accordance with the original,historical zoning. 3. Housing Unit Height. The proposed height of planned housing units (4 stories over one story of parking giving a final height of 5 stories)is not in keeping with the current height restrictions of 40 feet for retail and 50 feet for commercial. The PUD calls for 60 feet with embellishments which theoretically could be 65 feet total. Most Pine Ridge owners' lots that back onto Goodlette-Frank Road and many interior lots were densely wooded in 1 the past providing a buffer against high winds(e.g. hurricanes,tornadoes). However, Hurricane Irma(2017) clearly demonstrated protection from dense stands of native trees can no longer be assumed present as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion Ratio (square footage of commercial housing). It remains unclear why it is necessary to include the conversion ratio in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to construct 375 housing units by a change of use,building on empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings,then that is the plan and no conversion ratio is necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units,them the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Genuine concern remains that at a later date this conversion ratio can be invoked to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (>375). 5. Increased Motor Vehicular Traffic. The above-referenced PUD application proposes adding an assumed 750-900 POVs for assumed for multiple trips per day and frequently at concentrated times of the day and at one of the busiest intersections in the area(Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road). Increased traffic will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection,but also Panther Lane, which is owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students,parents and teachers, North Naples church parishioners and the Village School students,parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Road to head south. Also, adversely affected will be Pine Ridge homeowners and guests exiting Center Street making U-turns to hed north on Goodlette-Frank Road,Autumn Woods homeowners and guests crossing Goodlette-Frank Road to turn south and everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pind Ridge Road heading south on Goodlette (4 lanes of traffic!),the Fire Station on Pine Ridge Road and anyone else attempting negotiate the already existing excessive volume of motor vehicular traffic on both roads. In summary,we are vehemently opposed to deviating from the existing carefully considered, discussed,and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. Our objections are to the proposed height and housing density and traffic density of the proposed project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of Collier County Commissioners. Overall, we believe that approval and execution of the project proposed the above-referenced project will exacerbate existing traffic issues in the area of the Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection,negatively impact property values and the currently existing highly-desirable lifestyle in Pine Ridge, and reduce the safety of current Pine Ridge residents. 2 In advance,please accept our thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, rr► Robert M. bite, Sr.,Ph.D.,D.A.B.C.C.,C.H.R.M., LTC (Ret.,Army MSC). Vickie B. White / Robert M. White,Jr. 3 BrownleeMichael From: Robert Eardley <robert@swflorida-law.com> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2018 3:57 PM To: HomiakKaren; Dearbornpdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; FryerEdwin; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Holly Eardley(hollistereardley@gmail.com); Peter Pytlik;jwoods@lawfirmnaples.com; Stuart Miller Subject: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, I am a Pine Ridge resident and am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above application. 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location -375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units-4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40'for retail and 50' for commercial. PUD calls for 60' with embellishments(65'total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio-square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units, then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed)frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic), the Fire Station on Pine Ridge Rd. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate from Collier County Growth Management Plan. Thank you for your consideration. ROBERT H. EARDLEY, Esq., LL.M. Board Certified Wills, Trusts&Estates Lawyer Law Office of Robert H. Eardley, P.A. 1415 Panther Lane, Suite 221 1 Naples,FL 34109 Office:(239)591-6776 Fax: (239)591-6777 Email:robert(a,swflorida-law.com Web:www.swflorida-law.com The information contained in this transmission may be attorney-client privileged and confidential.It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by e-mail or by telephone collect at(239)591-6776 and delete the original message.Thank you. it li 2 BrownleeMichael From: Benjamin King <floridaseller@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 10:53 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Proposed Pine Ridge Commons PUD My name is Benjamin King. My wife, Kathleen King and I have lived at 56 Myrtle Rd. in Pine Ridge for over 20 years. We both attended the June 5, 2018 Meeting and agree with all the comments listed below. The meeting was really was sub-standard and should be disqualified. The density of this development and its impact on already existing traffic issues on Goodlette and Pine Ridge roads particularly in season really needs to be addressed. Dear Donna Fiala Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: •frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) •assumptive answers (assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or`mock-ups' of the proposed housing units •contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) •questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location - 375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units -4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40' for retail and 50' for commercial. PUD calls for 60' with embellishments (65' total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio - square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units, then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic- this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed) frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic), the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd - and the list goes on. 1 In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed, and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns Yours truly Benjamin and Kathleen King 2 BrownleeMichael From: Zlad Shahla MD MBA FACP <drshahlall@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2018 3:03 PM To: HomiakKaren; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; FryerEdwin; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay Cc: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; 'Ziad Shahla MD '; jshahla1527@gmail.com Subject: PUD Caroline Martino & the PRCA Board Dear members Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: •frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) •assumptive answers (assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or'mock-ups' of the proposed housing units •contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) •questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location - 375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units -4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40' for retail and 50' for commercial. PUD calls for 60' with embellishments (65' total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio - square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units, then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed) frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic), the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd - and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed, and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns Yours truly Dr. Z Shahla and Jana Shahla 2 BrownleeMichael From: Cheri Flood <cherideluge©yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2018 3:56 PM To: pdearborn@johnrwood.com; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: Pine Ridge Commons Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application- PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: •frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) •assumptive answers(assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or'mock-ups' of the proposed housing units •contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) •questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location -375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units-4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40'for retail and 50' for commercial. PUD calls for 60' with embellishments(65'total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio-square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units,then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed) frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic),the Fire Station on Pine RI idge Rd -and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed, and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Yours truly, Cheryl Flood Sent from my iPhone 2 BrownleeMichael From: Susan DeVito <sdevito64@me.com> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2018 9:43 PM To: HomiakKaren; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; FryerEdwin; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 To Whom It May Concern Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice our concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: •frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) •assumptive answers(assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans,sketches or'mock-ups' of the proposed housing units •contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) •questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed,we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location-375 housing units are proposed,with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units-4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40'for retail and 50'for commercial. PUD calls for 60'with embellishments (65'total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio-square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings,then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units,then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding(assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day,and (assumed) frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic),the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd-and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed,and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of 1 this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration regarding this enormous potential mistake Susan and Andrew DeVito 2 BrownleeMichael From: Zlad Shahla MD MBA FACP <drshahlal l@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2018 3:03 PM To: HomiakKaren; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; FryerEdwin; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay Cc: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; 'Ziad Shahla MD '; jshahla1527@gmail.com Subject: PUD Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Caroline Martino &the PRCA Board Dear members Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: •frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) •assumptive answers (assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or'mock-ups' of the proposed housing units •contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) •questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location - 375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units -4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40' for retail and 50' for commercial. PUD calls for 60' with embellishments (65' total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio - square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units, then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed) frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic), the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd - and the list goes on. 1 In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed, and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns Yours truly Dr. Z Shahla and Jana Shahla 2 BrownleeMichael From: Sheldon Starman <sstarman©rwhsgcpa.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 12:06 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; EbertDiane Subject: Pine Ridge Commons Gentlemen and Ladies— I believe it is extremely important to remind members of the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners that a community is entitled to the current zoning of the property in which we settle. The zoning laws serve all community members. Developers have no right to expect the County Commissioners to change the zoning for the benefit of the Developer and to the detriment of community members. Additionally, the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) was put in place to assure our community grows and develops in a responsible manner. The 31 acre property in question has already been re-zoned once before at the request of the Developer. The original zoning was Rural Agricultural and Residential Single Family (RSF-3). RSF-3 permits three dwelling units per acre while the Agricultural Zoning permits one dwelling unit per five acres. A zoning change was granted (December 14, 1999) to allow retail and commercial use at this location. We do not believe that an exception to the GMP and zoning for this site should be granted for a second time, nor should it be granted to so dramatically increase the density of any portion of the Pine Ridge subdivision. The community members trust the Planning Commission and County Commissioners to follow the GMP - not to ignore and change it simply to meet the changing desires of Developers. yours truly SieedOft s Sheldon W Starman, CPA 1 BrownleeMichael From: mklww@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 12:37 PM Subject: Pine Ridge Commons Dear All of the above: Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360 I/we believe it is extremely important to remind members of the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners that a property owner is entitled to the current zoning of their property! The zoning laws serve all community members. Developers have no right to expect the County Commissioners to change the zoning for the benefit of the Developer and to the detriment of community members. Additionally, the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) was put in place to assure our comm unity grows and develops in a responsible manner. The 31 acre property in question has already been re-zoned once before at the request of the Developer. The original zoning was Rural Agricultural and Residential Single Family (RSF-3). RSF-3 permits three dwelling units per acre while the Agricultural Zoning permits one dwelling unit per five acres. A zoning change was granted (December 14, 1999) to allow retail and commercial use at this location. We do not believe that an exception to the GMP and zoning for this site should be granted for a second time. I/we, the community members trust the Planning Commission and County Commissioners to follow the GMP - not to ignore and change it simply to meet the changing desires of Developers. yours truly Linda and Jerry Stawski, 173 Tupelo RD,Pine Ridge Estates BrownleeMichael From: Cliff Schneider<fxrp@embargmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 8:13 AM To: HomiakKaren; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; FryerEdwin; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: AAACIiff Schneider Subject: Pine Ridge Commons PUD Application Petition CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 14 JUNE 2018 CLIFFORD H. SCHNEIDER 234 TUPELO RD. NAPLES, FL 34108 Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, FL Collier County Government Complex Naples, FL 34108 Sent via EMail Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I write in support of the subject PUD Amendment Application for the Pine Ridge Commons Project. The amendment calls for conversion of commercial use to multi-family residential. The amendment provides a reasonable and flexible use for this property. A landowner has a right to use their property and I fully support this application. 1 Clifford H. Schneider cc: Collier County Planning Commission District 1 : Karen Homiak,Vice Chair KarenHomiak@colliergov.net District 2 : Patrick Dearborn pdearborn@johnrwood.com District 3 : Diane K. Ebert, Secretary DianeEbert(c@colliergov.net District 4 : Edwin Fryer EdwinFryer@colliergov.net District 5 : Mark Strain, Chair markstrain@colliergov.net At-Large Environmental : Stan Chrzanowski StanChrzanowski@colliergov.net At-Large Environmental :Joseph Schmitt JosephSchmitt@colliergov.net School Board (Non-Voting) : Thomas Eastman eastmath@collierschools.com County Liaison : Ray Bellows RayBellows@colliergov.net Collier County Board of Commissioners District 1: Donna Fiala: DonnaFiala@colliergov.net District 2: Andy Solis, Esq AndySolis@colliergov.net District 3: Burt Saunders BurtSaunders@colliergov.net District 4: Penny Taylor PennyTaylor@colliergov.net District 5: William L McDaniel,Jr BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net 2 BrownleeMichael From: Marni Chur<marnichur@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 5:41 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Pine Ridge Commons Dear Donna, Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: *frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) •assumptive answers (assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or'mock-ups' of the proposed housing units •contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) *questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location -375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units-4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40'for retail and 50'for commercial. PUD calls for 60'with embellishments(65'total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio -square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units,then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed)frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic),the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd -and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed, and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. i Thank you for your consideration of my concerns Yours truly, Marni and Neil Chur 700 Myrtle Road 2 BrownleeMichael From: Ross Edlund <ROSSEDLUND@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:00 PM To: HomiakKaren; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; FryerEdwin; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; eastmath@collierschools.com; BellowsRay; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Re: Pine Ridge Commons - PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/P! L20160002360 Dear Commissioners, I strongly object to the proposed rezoning my neighborhood of Pine Ridge to allow for the construction of approximately 400 units of apartment housing. We are residents of Pine Ridge for nearly 20 years-- my wife and I chose the community for its rural style living, the fact it is not gated, and for its spacious, non-intrusive life style. It is a unique residential area and its character does not deserve to be altered by changing the zoning and adding increased density. We hopefully would all be able to enjoy the community we select to make our home and not to have its character detrimentally altered by developers' profit motive. Leave Pine Ridge the way it is. Sincerely, Ross Edlund, CEO Skillets Restaurants 5461 Airport Rd N Naples, FL 34109 Residential address: 220 Hickory Road, 34108 BrownleeMichael From: Ric Talford <rictalford@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 11:17 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Pine Ridge Commons Dear Donna Re: Pine Ridge Commons- PUD Application - PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360 I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the above referenced Planned Unit Development application, as noted below: 1. The Neighborhood Information Meeting held on June 5 at North Naples Church was sub-standard and should be disqualified as a valid meeting of the approval process. The following will outline the reasons for disqualification: •frequently inaudible (questions from attendees and answers from representatives) •assumptive answers (assumed prior knowledge of project details) •no hand-outs; no plans, sketches or`mock-ups' of the proposed housing units •contradictory answers were given (e.g. answers to questions on traffic study) •questions on one topic answered by information on another topic. The community came to be informed, we left more confused than when we arrived. 2. Density- Proposed housing unit density at this location - 375 housing units are proposed, with anticipation of at least 2 people per unit and anticipated minimum 2 cars per unit are not in keeping with the historical original zoning 3. Height- Proposed height of planned housing units -4 stories of housing over 1 story of parking. Current height restrictions are 40' for retail and 50' for commercial. PUD calls for 60' with embellishments (65' total?). Most of Pine Ridge homeowners' lots that back on to Goodlette-Frank Rd may be have been densely wooded in the past but Hurricane Irma has clearly shown this cannot be taken for granted as a substantial buffer. 4. Conversion ratio - square footage of commercial to housing. It remains unclear why it is necessary to include this in the PUD application. If the developer's plan is to build 375 housing units by a change of use, building on currently empty land and removing some of the current commercial buildings, then that's the plan. No conversion ratio necessary. If the plan is to build less than 375 housing units, then the application process should start once their business model is defined and their plan is clear. Real concern remains that this conversion ratio can be invoked at a later date to remove more of the remaining commercial buildings and increase the number of housing units (more than 375). 5. Traffic-this PUD application proposes adding (assumed) 750-900 cars for(assumed) multiple trips per day, and (assumed) frequently at concentrated times of the day, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. This will adversely impact not only the actual Pine Ridge Road/Goodlette-Frank Road intersection, but also Panther Lane (owned and used by Pine Ridge Middle School students, parents and teachers), North Naples Church parishioners and the Village School students, parents and teachers crossing or making U-turns on Goodlette-Frank Rd to head south, Pine Ridge homeowners exiting Center Street making U-turns to head north on Goodlette-Frank Rd, Autumn Woods homeowners crossing Goodlette-Frank Rd to turn south, everyone exiting Pine Ridge Commons onto Pine Ridge Rd heading south on Goodlette (across 4 lanes of traffic), the Fire Station on Pine R! idge Rd - and the list goes on. In summary, I do not support this request to deviate again from the carefully considered, discussed, and approved Collier County Growth Management Plan. My subsequent objections are to the proposed height, and housing and traffic density of this project. At issue is the lack of detail provided to the community prior to the PUD Application being considered for approval by the Planning Commission; and then further consideration and super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners. 1 Thank you for your consideration of my concerns Yours truly id's. rhz@d P.O. Box 110537 Naples, FL 34108 239-250-3456 rictalford@earthlink.net 2 BrownleeMichael From: Patty Jensen <pattyajensen@aol.com> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 5:06 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Pine Ridge Commons Dear Ms. Fiala: I do not support the request to change the approved Collier County Growth Management Plan at this location. I object to the proposed height as well as the housing and traffic densities slated for this project. Please do not approve this deviation from the original Plan. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Patricia A.Jensen 641 Hickory Road Naples, FL 34108 Sent from my iPad i AGENDA ITEM 9-G Coeivo Tiler County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MAY 17, 2018 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20160002306 PINE RIDGE COMMONS PUD COMPANION ITEM: PL20160002360/CP-2016-03 Owner/Applicant: Agents: Trail Boulevard, LLLP D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Q. Grady Minor and Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, Naples, FL 34105 Associates, P.A. P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Goodlette Pine Ridge II LLC Bonita Springs, FL 34134 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 99-94, the Pine Ridge Commons Planned Unit Development(PUD). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consists of 31+/- acres and is located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County (see location map,page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petitioner seeks to amend Pine Ridge Commons PUD, approved via Ordinance #99-94, to create a mixed-use district by adding 375 multi-family dwelling units as permitted uses in the commercial district in the areas designated on the Master Plan (See Attachment C); by adding development standards for residential structures by providing a conversion rate from commercial to residential. PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 1 of 15 Revised:April 27,2018 r, mc 5.D \ I v o SITE I LOCATION g ro o \ MPUD N N o w - i A ... Dorn Z PROJECT a j A 5 LOCATION m X Cr a , 1.1111111-444, 3 12 a r Y N Ila PINE RIDGE RD "9'" x a ... .......:,... �. PUD iii are .vase eew s d .. g c PPU :� s e .. .. UD O W 1 Tr 03 Location Map Zoning Map N O Petition Number: PL20160002306 1 I 1 1 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses, zoning classifications, and maximum approved densities for properties surrounding boundaries of Pine Ridge Commons PUD: North: Developed recreational use with a multipurpose field and sand volleyball courts, with a current zoning designation of North Naples United Methodist Church MPUD and is approved for religious facilities, grade schools, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and independent living units for age 55 plus, and senior housing. East: Developed community facilities with North Naples Fire Station and offices zoned Commercial Professional and General Office District (C-1) and Pine Ridge Middle School zoned Rural Agricultural (A). South: Pine Ridge Road, a six-lane arterial roadway, and then a recreational area and single-family homes with a zoning designation of Moorings Park Estates PUD (2.28 DU/AC) and is approved for single-family homes. West: Goodlette-Frank Road, a six-lane arterial roadway, and then single-family homes and undeveloped lots zoned Rural Agricultural (A). an. , r , , .„.. i: , _ \\:, , _ , ,, .,* r .. . . 1!‘"Pl'.,' - H ,- ,FIs 1 �. .144 „, ,, ,----- t ..�,c ..,,,,,t /cot I 4 _ir e4 ”, 4 R rs 0.4 Collier County Property Appraiser PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 3 of 15 Revised:April 27,2018 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict,as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the GMP. This petition is not consistent with any of the Urban, Urban Commercial District, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistricts that allow mixed use zoning; it relies, in part, on a companion Large-Scale GMP Amendment (GMPA) to the FLUE provisions toward achieving consistency. The GMPA [ref. PL20160002360/CP-2016-03] to the FLUE would rename the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict and will establish the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict and amend the text to add a residential use for a maximum of 375 multi- family dwelling units for rental, while continuing to allow a maximum of 275,000 square feet of office and commercial uses to create a Mixed Use Subdistrict. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the amendment for transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity(DEO) on December 12, 2017. Due to the request to add additional multi-family dwelling units,staff reviewed the FLUE's density rating system to determine residential density eligibility for the Pine Ridge Commons PUD site. The Base Density in the Urban Designation Area of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A), plus 1 additional DU/A for access to two or more arterial roads,plus 3 additional DU/A for being within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (depending on whether it is determined that it follows Policies 6.1-6.7) yields a total of up to 8 DU/A or 245 dwelling units (30.65A * 8 DU/A=245.2 DUs). The FLUE states: "The County has designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA)to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provides multiple,viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips." The project site is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area, which enables this project to be eligible for 3 additional DU/A, as stated in the Density Rating System of the FLUE. Northwest TCMA is bounded by the Collier—Lee County Line on the north side;the west side of the I-75 right-of-way on the east side;Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and,the Gulf of Mexico on the west side. FLUE Policy 6.3 states: "Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl by promoting residential and commercial infill development and by promoting redevelopment of areas wherein current zoning was approved prior to the establishment of this Growth Management Plan (January 10, 1989). Infill development and redevelopment within the TCMAs shall be consistent with Objective 5, and relevant subsequent policies, of this Element." The petitioner is requesting a maximum of 375 DUs. The requested 375 DUs would be a density of 12.23 DU/A (375DU / 30.65 A = 12.23 DU/A), which is 4 DU/A higher than the number calculated by the Density Rating System. PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 4 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 The FLUE encourages Mixed Use developments through FLUE Policy 7.5, and the policy states, "This Policy shall be implemented through provisions in specific Subdistricts in this Growth Management Plan." The FLUE goes on to say, "The Urban Mixed-Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments." Although this Subdistrict is not located within a Mixed-Use Activity Center, it does present many of the same characteristics allowing both residential and commercial retail/office uses, and is located at an intersection of two major roadways, may be developed at a human-scale, may be pedestrian-oriented, and provides an interconnection with one abutting project (North Naples Middle School). Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with abutting properties, where possible and practicable, are being proposed with this Subdistrict. Also, this Subdistrict is located proximate to major employment centers and goods and services located along the Pine Ridge Road Corridor and along US 41 located 1/2 mile to the west. If a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed-Use Activity Center, which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is 16 DU/A. Because this project has many of the same characteristics as a Mixed- Use Activity Center, it may be appropriate to allow a density greater than that potentially allowed by the density rating system from 8 DU/A to 12.23 DU/A (which is still almost 4 DU/A less than allowed in the Mixed-Use Activity Center). Because this is a new Subdistrict, it is not limited by the Density Rating System, and the petitioner may request 12.23 DU/A. Based upon the analysis,the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP, contingent, in part, upon the companion GMPA being adopted and going into effect. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date to be linked to an effective date of the companion GMP A. (Please, see Attachment B—FLUE Consistency Review.) 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 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states, "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall 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 PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 5 of 15 Revised:April 27,2018 No deviation from required usable open space is being requested, and compliance would be demonstrated at the time of SDP or PPL. 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 consistency review.Operational impacts will be addressed at time of the first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time, a new Transportation Impact Statement (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. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains, 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. All future development proposed on the Pine Ridge Commons PUD would have to comply the LDC and other applicable codes. The petitioner is not requesting any deviations to the LDC. 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 GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the (FLUM) and other elements of the GMP if the proposed GMPA is adopted. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 10 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 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. The property is currently zoned PUD and would remain as such. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This petition does not propose any change to the boundaries of the PUD. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary; however, it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to include the proposed uses and development standards that are specific to the subject parcel. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed PUD Amendment 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 is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time, a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any SDP or PLL approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUDA request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided stormwater best management practices,treatment,and storage on this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with 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 PPL. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated the changes proposed to this PUD Amendment would seriously reduce PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 11 of 15 Revised: April 27,2018 light or air to the adjacent areas. 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 exchange of commercial development for residential development as proposed in the PUD amendment is not anticipated to serve as a deterrent to improvement of adjacent property. 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 subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed uses cannot be achieved without amending the PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff's opinion that the proposed uses, 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. PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 12 of 15 Revised:April 27,2018 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require 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 amendment 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. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.03.05 A,was duly advertised,noticed, and held on April 24, 2017, 5:30 p.m. at Naples Area Board of Realtors, 1455 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, FL 34109. This NIM was advertised, noticed,and held jointly for this Planned Unit Development Amendment(PUDA)petition and the companion large scale GMPA. The applicant's team gave a presentation and then responded to questions. A total of approximately 35 members of the public along with approximately 6 members of the applicant's team and County staff signed in at the NIM. The public asked questions about the project details. The consultant explained the application included a maximum of 400 multi-family dwelling units (DUs) either rental or townhomes; however, the petition was subsequently revised to provide for a maximum of 375 multi-family DUs, rental only. Many voiced concerns over the traffic and access points and opposed the petition for this reason. The consultants explained that the access points would remain unchanged from what is currently operating and that although the trips generated from the project would not increase beyond the previously approved total number of trips, the pattern of travel times might be different. Concerns were also voiced over the capacity in the nearby Pine Ridge Middle School. The meeting ended at approximately 6:10 p.m. A copy PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 13 of 15 Revised:April 27, 2018 t of the NIM materials and transcript are attached in backup materials supplied by applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on April 30, 2018. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval subject to approval of the companion GMPA. Attachments: A) Proposed Ordinance B) FLUE Consistency Review C) Master Plan PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 14 of 15 Revised:April 27,2018 PREPARED BY: TIMOTHY F , AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: ri LI/Z7//8 RAYMON . BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: -410IF 64' - 7 - / PES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 15 of 15 Revised:April 27, 2018 BrownleeMichael Ilh From: Robin Azzo <robinazzo@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 11:32 AM To: SolisAndy; GoodnerAngela; FialaDonna; BrownleeMichael; SaundersBurt; LykinsDave; McDanielBill; FilsonSue Subject: Agenda item 11A. Whippoorwill/Pine Ridge Rd. Hello, I am writing to you in hopes that you will hear me! Please don't take away the left-hand turn coming out of Whippoorwill Lane. Turning onto Pine Ridge Road is the only exit out of Whippoorwill Lane. Whippoorwill Lane is a dead end. If you take away our left-hand turn and force us to make a right, you are only accommodating the morning commuters heading west. Forcing us to make a right-hand turn during evening rush-hour is only adding to that traffic. Afternoon traffic heading east is WAY MORE HEAVY than the morning traffic. Taking away the left hand turn at Whippoorwill Lane will also force two new lights on Pine Ridge Road. How is that helping the traffic? We have 10 school buses traveling Whippoorwill per day, five in the morning and five in the afternoon. JUST DOWN WHIPPOORWILL!! All 10 buses need to make a left turn because all 3 zoned schools are to the west! Forcing school buses and emergency vehicles to make a right hand turn, and then have to merge to the left to make a U-turn, and then merge again to head west will slow them down which is irresponsible and frankly just a bad decision! We had a community meeting at ANDALUCIA clubhouse on January 24th, and I asked the county representatives if any of them live down Whippoorwill Lane. They all responded no but some said they travel Pine Ridge Road every morning and sit in traffic. Clearly they are accommodating themselves! They probably do not take Pine Ridge in the afternoon, therefore having no idea how bad it will be to force thousands of residents to make a right turn, adding to that eastbound traffic. The county is planning on spending over$23 MILLION DOLLARS on this project!! If the new traffic pattern to enter and exit I-75 and the new bridge or traffic pattern at Livingston Road and Pine Ridge will improve the traffic so much, justifying the millions spent,then no changes at Whippoorwill Lane need to occur! Please, I am begging you to vote NO at tomorrow's meeting while voting for the Whippoorwill changes. Thank you! Respectfully, Robin Azzopardi BrownleeMichael From: BrownleeMichael on behalf of FialaDonna Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 2:46 PM To: Joseph Scuba Cc: FialaDonna Subject: RE: Road Dear Mr. Scuba, Thank you for your email to Commissioner Fiala regarding the Whippoorwill Road extension that is being considered. I am told by the Transportation Division that following outreach to the effected neighborhoods and gathering input from the community in the weeks to come, that the item will be placed on the agenda at a future BCC Meeting in the upcoming season. Since the proposal and staff recommendation has not been finalized, the Commissioner has not had a chance to review it and therefore cannot provide an answer to your"for or against" question at this time. 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: (239) 252-6578 NOTE: Our County Email Addresses have changed. My new email address is Michael.Brownlee@CollierCountyFL.gov Subscribe to Commissioner Fiala's Newsletter here. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Original Message From:Joseph Scuba <firecapt917@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 1:38 PM To: FialaDonna <Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Road Commissioner Would like to know your position on the proposed road through Whippoorwill. Are you for or against ? Joe Scura Marbella Lakes 1 AGENDA ITEM ► S&9ty 1Ce STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JULY 19,2018 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20170004421 LELY BAREFOOT BEACH PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Bayfront Gardens Homeowners Association, Inc. Sarah E. Spector, Esq. &Robert D. Pritt, Esq. c/o Vesta Property Services Roetzel&Andress, LPA (as to Lots 11-33 Bayfront Gardens) 850 Park Shore Drive, Suite 300 27180 Bay Landing Drive, Suite 4 Naples,FL 34103 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Andrew M. and Gina Leake Gross (as to Lot 10 Bayfront Gardens) 242 Barefoot Beach Boulevard Bonita Springs, FL 34134 There are many owners within this PUD that have not joined in this petition. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioners are requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 85-83, an ordinance amending No. 85-21, which amended No. 77-48,the Lely Barefoot Beach Planned Unit Development(PUD). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consists of Tract I in Bayfront Gardens and is located south of Bonita Beach Road in Section 6,Township 48 South, Range 25 East,Collier County(see location map,page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petitioner seeks to amend Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, approved via Ordinance #77-48, by amending Section 10.5.6 maximum building height for Tract Ito increase the height from two habitable floors to three habitable floors. PUDA-PL20170004421; Lely Barefoot Beach Page 1 of 12 Revised: June 18. 2018 a ?fit xi'V me CO > CO D vt;T'!f x114"11 QO S k LEE COUNTY auu O N tt }3 w :.5:11:1:31E,_ff C", a is PROJECT s m BONITA BEACH RD LOCATION SITE to LOCATION tu LArOttle.x. Ctt //// I it O 0 Vt1 -oFs WIGGINS 5 PASS RD 3 i z 9m:.g ate,WES .rtro .t;0).'04t I �a Location Map Zoning Map O N: Petition Number: PL20170004421 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding boundaries of Lots 1 Q-33 of Tract I of the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD: North: Man-made waterway then single-family residential, zoned Lely Barefoot Beach PUD(2.25 DU/AC) South: Bayfront Drive, a local road, then preserve area, zoned Lely Barefoot Beach PUD (2.25 DU/AC) East: Bayfront Drive, a local road, then preserve area, zoned Lely Barefoot Beach PUD (2.25 DU/AC) West: Man-made waterway then single-family residential, zoned Lely Barefoot Beach PUD(2.25 DU/AC) 195 191 :, d (0) 182 4,'c I e:C+ 3.35 Subject Propertied 205 211 .41 (all in shaded 09 ,• yellow) 213 1.••..214 ,_ le to , - 21t7 14 3 . a'R:. L 2 : .'L L � i \ IA 229 231 235 m �t°c � 239 vti 1.7- iwit, o N 2 Z 241 Aerial(Cowin GIS) PUDA-PL20170004421, Lely Barefoot Beach Page 3 of 12 Revised June 18.2018 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed amendment. 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 amendment petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. Future Land Use Element(FLUE): Staff identified the FLUE policies relevant to this project and determined that the proposed amendment to the PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Please, see Attachment B—FLUE Consistency Review for a more detailed analysis of how staff derived this determination. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the application and found this petition consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. As indicated in the submittal the proposed PUD Amendment request is to allow three habitable floors on Tract 1 instead of the current limit of two habitable floors. Staff notes that the proposed change does not increase the number of dwelling units and does not generate additional new trips. 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): No revisions to the environmental portions of the PUD are being made. The petition is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME) of the GMP. STAFF ANALYSIS: 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.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." Drainage: The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through the environmental resource permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District.County staff will also evaluate the project's stormwater management system,calculations, and design criteria at the time of site development plan(SDP) and/or platting(PPL). PUDA-PL20170004421; Lely Barefoot Beach Page 4 of 12 Revised:June 18,2018 Landscape Review: The proposed changes to the PUD do not affect the landscaping standards identified in the original PUD. School District: The Collier County School District does not have any issue with the proposed amendment as it will not impact the District's level of service. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this PUD Amendment. Utilities Review. Public Utilities staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Zoning Services Review: This amendment to the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD proposes an increase in the maximum habitable floor limitation from two (2) to three (3) habitable floors for Tract I. This tract allows for single and multi-family residential development. Most of the surrounding tracts exceed the two-habitable floor limitation within Tract I. (See below table. Comparison of PUD Maximum Habitable Floors). Tract D is the most restrictive tract in that the maximum habitable floor limitation is two(2)habitable floors. Moreover,most of the tracts that exceed the three(3)maximum habitable floor limitation cover more acreage within the PUD than both Tract I and Tract D. (See below table, All Residential Parcels) The increase from two (2) to three (3) habitable floors for Tract I would bring the structures further into height conformity with the surrounding tracts in the PUD. As such, staff has determined the proposed PUD Amendment would be appropriate and compatible with the PUD. Comparison of PUD Maximum Habitable Floors PROPER'.v ( pop USF II BtTt1BtF 11 00135 R5 Ricjs k ,t.ly Barefoot Beach Unit One(PB 12, Low-Density Single Family 3 Pages 34 37) tract D______. ...__ --- Low-Density Single Family 2 (tely Barefoot Beach Unit Iwo(PB 15,7172)) Tract Nt Single or Multt-Family 4 Tract 1 Single or Multi-Family 2 Tract t Single Family 3 Lely Beach North Single or Multi-Family 6 (f'ortit rs rzi telt'Barefoot Beach Unit. thre.(1313 1&, Pages SS Sail telt'Reach South Fit 1 andDC-1 Low to Mid-Rise,Single or Multi- 6 (Portion of Lely Barefoot Beath Unit fuser(Pa 17, Family Pages Sr 6)) Let*Beach South DC 3 acid DC.- Low to Mid-Rise,Single or Multi- 5 Family PowerPoint Presentation slide by Sarah Spector(Roetzel&Andress,LPA) PUDA-P120170004421; Lely Barefoot Beach Page 5 of 12 Revised:June 18. 2018 All Residential Parcels 2FLOORS 3 FLOORS 4 FLOORS S F1 OORS c.,,',., 6 FLOORS J .8.55 Y *r...,_ „.,p vie PowerPoint Presentation slide by Sarah Spector(Roetzel&Andress,LPA) Furthermore,a letter of no objection was received by the Conservancy of Southwest Florida dated 3-14-18. (See Attachment G) LDC Section 10A2.13.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 10.02A8": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land,surrounding areas,traffic and access, drainage,sewer,water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. 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. Pt1DA-PL20170004421: Lely Barefoot Beach Page 6 of 12 Revised:June 18,2018 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 on page 4. 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, the proposed changes to the PUD do not affect the landscaping standards of the original PUD. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. No deviation from required usable open space is being requested, and compliance would be demonstrated at the time of SDP or PPL. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 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. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains, 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. All future development proposed on the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD would have to comply to the LDC and other applicable codes. The petitioner is not requesting any deviations to the LDC. 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 PUDA-PL20170004421; Lely Barefoot Beach Page 7 of 12 Revised: June 18,2018 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 GMP. 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. The property is currently zoned PUD and would remain as such. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This petition does not propose any change to the boundaries of the PUD. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary; however, it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to include the proposed uses and development standards that are specific to the subject parcel. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed PUD Amendment 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. There are no additional residential units proposed with this request and no additional trips generated. 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. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUDA request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, PUDA-PL20170004421; Lely Barefoot Beach Page 8 of 12 Revised: June 18,2018 provided stormwater best management practices,treatment,and storage on this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with 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 PPL. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated the changes proposed to this PUD Amendment would seriously reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 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 maximum building height for Tract I is proposed to increase from two habitable floors to three habitable floors and staff does not anticipate this amendment serving 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 subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed uses cannot be achieved without amending the PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff's opinion that the proposed uses, associated development standards, and developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. PUDA-PL20170004421; Lely Barefoot Beach Page 9 of 12 Revised: June 18,2018 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. 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 amendment 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. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on May 22,2018 at the Club at Barefoot Beach at 105 Shell Drive. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m.and ended at 5:51 p.m. The applicant's agent explained the request for the proposed PUD Amendment. Sarah Spector, Esq., the agent, gave a presentation and answered questions from attendees. It was discussed that the only change would be a text amendment change in Section 10.5.6(B) of the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD from two to three habitable floors within Tract I. None of the development regulations in Tract I such as setbacks,minimum lot areas,widths,and yards would change. There were also general discussions about heights, setbacks,and homeowner/condominium associations imposing additional color and design features.No commitments were discussed at this NIM meeting.A copy of the sign-in sheet, PowerPoint presentation, and transcript are included in Attachment C. PUDA-P120170004421; Lely Barefoot Beach Page 10 of 12 Revised: June 18,2018 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL(EAC) RECOMMENDATION: 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. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on June 29,2018. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: A) Proposed Ordinance B) FLUE Consistency Review C) NIM Advertising D) NIM Meeting-Presentation,transcript, and sign-in sheet E) Secretary's Certificate As to Vote F) Correspondence G) Conservancy of Southwest Florida—No Objection letter PUDA-PL20170004421; Lely Barefoot Beach Page 11 of 12 Revised:June 18,2018 PREPARED BY: TIMOTHY F 'Al P. PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: 7/Z(i RAYMO V. BELLOWS. ZONING MANAGER DA I E ZONING DIVISION —ZONING SERVICES SECTION MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION —ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: At4^el ee-^44 _ 7/748 KEN KOVENSKY, DIREC4R OF OPERATIONS DA 11, ON BEHALF OF JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDA-PL20170004421:Lely Barefoot Beach Page 12 of 12 Revised:June 18, 2018