The URL can be used to link to this page

Ex-parte - Saunders 06/27/2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Burt Saunders COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 06/27/17 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.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 an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2011-08,the Addie's Corner Mixed Use Planned Unit Development,to allow 250 multi-family dwelling units or Group Housing/Retirement uses in Tract C as shown on the Master Plan and 75,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial development and Group Housing/Retirement Community uses in Tract A as shown on the Master Plan; providing for amendment to the Master Plan; by providing for revised development standards; and by providing an effective date. The subject property consists of 23.33+/-acres and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida [PL20150001776]. SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails I iCalls Numerous letters and emails (51); Meeting with Rich Yovanovich, Wayne Arnold and David Jensen; May 22nd Town Hall Meeting — Numerous attendees spoke about project (85 attendees) 9.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 an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from Planned Unit Development(PUD)to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)for a project known as the Triad RPUD to allow development of 44 single-family dwelling units. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.75± acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 05-11, as amended by Ordinance No. 05-23,the former Triad Planned Unit Development, and by providing an effective date. [PUD- PL20160002564] SEE FILE ®Meetings Correspondence ®e-mails ['Calls Meeting with Rich Yovanovich and Wayne Everett; Emails from Douglas Lewis and Scott Lepore Numerous emails (21); Neighborhood Petition from 128 Black Bear Ridge Residents; Meetings with Terrie Abrams, various Board Members of Black Bear Ridge, Steve Bracci; Meetings with George Vuko and Bruce Anderson COUNTY MANAGERS REPORT 11.G. 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 final plat of Sereno Grove, (Application Number PL20160001884) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. SEE FILE 1—Meetings I !Correspondence ®e-mails (Calls Emails from Sheri Roberts CONSENT AGENDA 16.A.2. 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 final plat of Maple Ridge Amenity Center at Ave Maria, (Application Number PL20170000724) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE (Meetings Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls 16.A.3. 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 Oyster Harbor at Fiddler's Creek Phase 1 - Replat 3, Application Number PL20170000332. SEE FILE ®Meetings Correspondence De-mails (Calls Meeting with Anthony Pires, Terry Cole and Valerie Lord 16.A.4. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples Phase 4, Parcel "L", (Application Number PL20170001594) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE [Meetings ❑Correspondence ( le-mails ❑Calls 1432, Page 1093 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Quit Claim Deed and Bill of Sale to transfer wastewater facilities from the County to the property owner. The subject property is located on the west side of • Bayshore Drive, approximately one quarter mile south of Tamiami Trail East, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE I !Meetings (Correspondence Fie-mails ❑Calls \ 3 CD \ \\\ / ) 4 ,EEEE Ln \ ,, cu `\\\ 0'42' 64' 0 $ ®_c.:n.1 ® z °=a2 . 1, L--y----_-_-., CA 7m$ • I \0 ! » U 1 ( } k .0 L o § i F, r2 E / ( c E 2 w L'I'I 0I7 & in E \ \ . E ® § / . - E t w 1 g \ ! E \ { � Z _ ! is E _ { \ ) a \ 2 m no rn \ E \ \ E E _ ~ i o \ } / 0 8 « , \ \ , 0 E \ E \ , ii o E ) / - e° ii hili a' g CI E �. li \ \ \ ik CO / } > ` a C } 1 § 2 \ .c \ } \ / } 01 MI t g w g ` f \ j) \ \ E °Z C kip 5>- j � / � k\k \ \ � \ / \ 12 as 0 , _ - a � § 3 a 5 ` 2 E. a o ) |] e ; ; % ) t C - / q / �u � / `smumi moo ma / ». \ /<a Z c O 2 Cr) 3 g \ .R \ co e o n : . CO LykinsDave From: Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Sent: Saturday, March 18; 2017 10:24 AM To: SaundersBurt Cc: LykinsDave Subject: FW:Addie's Corner, PLEASE, Preserve the Preserve, Request for appointment Attachments: Email to Collier County Planning Commissioners and County Commissioners, 3-18-17.pdf; Picture from rear of Amour Court property, IMG_5226.JPG Mr. Saunders, Below is an email sent to all County Commissioners. If possible, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you at your Tamiami Trail office. Would you have 10 minutes to meet at any of the following times: Wednesday March 29, 2:30 or later Thursday March 30, between 8 and 5 Friday March 31, between 8 and 1 pm Thank you very much. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 From: Miller, Sam H. Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 10:16 AM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net' ; 'AndySolis@colliergov.net' ; 'BurtSaunders@colliergov.net' ; 'PennyTaylor@colliergov.net' ; 'Donna Fiala@colliergov.net' Cc: 'MichaelBrownlee@colliergov.net' ; 'AngelaGoodner@colliergov.net' ; 'DaveLykins@colliergov.net' ; 'SherryGreco@colliergov.net' ; 'SueFilson@colliergov.net' Subject:Addie's Corner, PLEASE, Preserve the Preserve, Letter to Collier County Commissioners To: Collier County Commissioners Attached please find a letter and picture file related to the Addie's Corner Project.Thank you for your consideration. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 1 March 18, 2017 Collier County Commissioners&Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Re:Addie's Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776. We live in Esplanade Golf&Country Club, on Immokalee Rd. We have 3 primary concerns with the Addie's Corner Development: 1. Removal of trees, loss of property value. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the right of Esplanade Blvd.,with many tall trees. The residents on Amour Court currently enjoy the view from the rear of their homes,shown in the attached picture. When they purchased their lots,they understood they were facing a Preserve. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15'to 25' in width,with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through the thin tree line. In addition,the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line,4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values. If 8.85 acres was determined to be sufficient for the prior property owner,why shouldn't the proposed development be held to the same size? 2. Shared Access Point. Current plans show a shared access point (driveway) between Esplanade and Addie's Corner. Since this is shown after the Esplanade security gate, we are concerned who will be entering our community. Even if a separate security gate is placed there,the paved road will make it easy for pedestrians and bicyclists to enter our private community. Headlights from vehicles will shine into the rear of the homes on Amour Court. 3. Traffic. It is already very difficult to exit Esplanade onto Immokalee Rd or enter Esplanade with a left turn from the eastbound lane. In addition, cars making a U-turn opposite our driveway from the eastbound to the westbound lane add an additional challenge. Even if only 150 residential units are permitted,the additional residential and retail traffic exiting Addie's Corner will create longer delays and more of a safety issue. We understand significantly more development is planned at Collier and Immokalee. Immokalee Rd. cannot handle the current volume of traffic. We encourage you to: a. Not allow the reduction of the preserve, or alternatively, increase the buffer to a minimum of 150' and require a type C buffer. b. Permit the 2 types of exotic trees to remain within the buffer, or if they must be removed,then require that they be replaced. c. Limit this development to 2 story buildings and no more than 150 residential units. d. Remove the Shared Access Point between Esplanade and Addie's Corner e. Widen Immokalee Rd. before allowing any more development. f. Require any lighting to be directed away from Esplanade. Thank you for your consideration. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Ct. Naples, FL 34119 LykinsDave From: Robert Knuppel <bob@knuppel.org> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:10 AM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Esplanade cc v Barron Collier and Addiies Corner As you know there is at least 4 buildings proposed by BC across from the Esplanade and Amour Ct.The lack of opacity and height of the buildings will destroy our view. Obviously there will be noise, more traffic and traffic intersections that are dangerous.We now have difficulty emerging from Esplanade onto Immokalee. Diplomacy and negotiation from an asymmetric table has been futile. We simply asked for movement of the buildings easterly, increased opacity, assistance with berm development to help hide lights and noise, critical positioning of the buildings to preserve the preserve. BC increase in use of the preserve decreased the preserve by more than 50%. At this point it would appear building an high berm and an attractive foliage covered wall and increased opacity would not be that costly and opacity can be increase as long as the buildings are kept at 50 feet. The buffer can be at least 30- 50-feet. We ask for your assistance in protecting the preserve and our views. Thank you for you time. Robert Knuppel MD, MBA, MPH 8628 Amour Ct Naples, Fl 34119 908-812-5240 1 LykinsDave From: Terrie Abrams <terrie.abrams@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 2:36 PM To: LykinsDave Subject: Re: Black Bear Ridge Thank you so much for your quick response. Please schedule this time for us. Kind regards, Sent from my iPad Terrie 630.244.4800 > On May 3, 2017, at 2:22 PM, LykinsDave <DaveLykins@colliergov.net>wrote: > >Terrie, >On behalf of the Commissioner, I will be pleased to assist with the scheduling of an appointment. Would Monday May 22nd be suitable for you and others who plan on attending? If so, 11 am is available for your consideration. Please advise at your convenience. > Regards... > > Dave Lykins > Executive Coord. to District 3 Commissioner Burt Saunders >davelykins@colliergov.net >3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite#303 > Naples, FL 34112 > P: (239) 252-8603 > > > 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:Terrie Abrams [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] >Sent:Tuesday, May 2, 2017 4:45 PM >To: SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net> >Cc: LykinsDave <DaveLykins@colliergov.net> >Subject: Black Bear Ridge > > Hello Burt, > > Black Bear Ridge would like to schedule a meeting with you to discuss the latest developments surrounding our community and how we move forward with the county on dealing with road improvements. We greatly appreciate the time and support you have shown us. > > How do we get on your calendar? > > I tried scheduling a meeting with Nick Casalanguida but received no response. LykinsDave From: Terrie Abrams <terrie.abrams@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:50 PM To: CasalanguidaNick Cc: MarcellaJeanne; ScottTrinity; LykinsDave; Bracci Steve Subject: Re: BBR phone call - May 5 , 2017 Nick, It is far more professional to engage during our face to face meeting so I apologize for not being able to help myself here and comment again. My last email ... I promise. Can we all agree that the PUD ordinance says the "developer" will be responsible for intersection improvements? Isn't that what developer bonds are for? And, shouldn't the county have required agreement from the developers so that proper security bonds could have been obtained by the county? You had mentioned the multiple developers involved couldn't sort things out. Isn't that where the counties expertise lies in establishing funding for infrastructure in a clear and concise fashion. Versus something that has been hanging out there for years that the " best of the best "thinks is a can of worms ? This goes back to your statement this morning that the county required the developer agreement but never read it (supposedly). We Black Bear Ridge citizens do place public trust in the County — to enforce the developer obligations transparently and fairly, as part of the County's public service. Not to let it slip and then later attempt to place the financial burden on taxpayer-owners. I am very sorry if you were offended by my Bruce comment but could not figure out the relevancy to our conversation when you mentioned "Bruce was a dear friend". My background is the private sector so keeping business and friendship was a clear distinction. I look forward to our meeting. Thank you very much for your time. Kind Regards, Sent from my iPad Terrie 630.244.4800 On May 5, 2017, at 11:28 AM, CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida(&,colliergov.net> wrote: Good Morning Terrie, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this morning. Your recollection and summary of our conversation is not quite accurate. We work transparently and fairly for both you in public trust as a citizen and public service for the developer and our Board. I will schedule the meeting and I will certainly keep an open mind. I have the copied Mr.Anderson and Mr. Lykins so that both parties area aware and the Commissioner of the district is also informed. Jeanne, Please work with Trinity to set this meeting up. Please make sure Trinity invites all interested parties. Please see my comments below underlined.... - the county required the developers to address road infrastructure yet you and others didn't read it to make sure it satisfied the needs of the county or residents. 2 The county reviewed and approved all documents that were part of the public process and enforceable by the County. We did not create, review, or approved the private agreement. That was done outside of the County's review. It was completed and signed prior to any county staff seeing it. We set the requirements for a joint infrastructure project that collectively handled all of your combined traffic impacts. How the individual parties chose to fund those improvements, the timing, and stipulations were privately agreed upon. - we will provide you with a pre read prior to the meeting on May 10 or 11 Thank you, I will ask Jeanne to make sure all sides can attend the meeting in a an open and transparent environment. - your " dear friend" is Bruce Anderson I do not appreciate the mischaracterization. Bruce is a professional colleague and I respect him immensely. You will find that Bruce and I have had many professional disagreements. I will treat both parties without bias and make my recommendation to the Board based on past practice. - Trinity has a plan to ask the developer of Vanderbilt Commons to pay for the turn into the plaza which is already his requirement. But the plan is to take it one step further to to eliminate the need forever for more improvements such as a traffic signal even if it is warranted and becomes a safety issue. I have asked Trinity to evaluate a left turn lane in lieu of a signal. - it is our belief the residents do not have any cost burden for signalization or road improvements as they lie with the county and or developers. The burden you currently have or do not have will be based on approved ordinances, transfers of obligations through contracts, and private agreements. I cannot make a determination based on the limited discussion we have had. Respectfully, Nick Casalanguida Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@Colliergov.net 239-252-8383 <image001.png> From:Terrie [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 11:03 AM To: CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: BBR phone call- May 5 , 2017 Hi Nick, Thanks for the call this morning. Just a quick recap. 3 -the county required the developers to address road infrastructure yet you and others didn't read it to make sure it satisfied the needs of the county or residents. - we will provide you with a pre read prior to the meeting on May 10 or 11 - your " dear friend" is Bruce Anderson 1 - Trinity has a plan to ask the developer of Vanderbilt Commons to pay for the turn into the plaza which is already his requirement. But the plan is to take it one step further to to eliminate the need forever for more improvements such as a traffic signal even if it is warranted and becomes a safety issue. - it is our belief the residents do not have any cost burden for signalization or road improvements as they lie with the county and or developers. We look forward to meeting with you and finalizing an appropriate quick action to resolve this mess. Kind Regards, Terrie 630.244.4800 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. 4 LykinsDave From: Jane Rollins <naplesjane1@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 9:02 AM To: StrainMark; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue;JohnsonEric Subject: Collier County Planning Commission Project# 20150001776. May 8,2017 Eric Johnson,Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Collier County Planning Commissioners Diane Ebert, Stan Chrzanowski,Joseph Scmitt,Mark Strain Collier County Commissioners Burt Saunders,Donna Fiala,Penny Taylor,Bill McDaniel,Andy Solis, cc:Dave Lykins,Michael Brownlee, Angela Goodner, Sherry Greco, Sue Filson Re:Addie's Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776. We are homeowners who live in in Esplanade Golf&Country Club full time and registered voters in Collier County. We have several primary concerns about our home investment as it will be impacted by the Addie's Corner Development: 1. Safety and Traffic.We are a gated community. We are requesting that the density be lowered considerably below the proposed plan. 349 living units plus a possible group house would have a sizable impact for all of us currently living off Immokalee Rd.if we needed to evacuate in the event of a hurricane.We have no north bound route until 1-75,about 4.5 miles from Collier Blvd. We have only one paved entrance and exit from our neighborhood and it is Immokalee Rd. To leave,we have to share the turn out with cars making U turns in the same space as us.People don't realize who has right of way and this makes for a dangerous situation.The impact of adding as many as 349 living units, a group home and an unknown number of businesses to the traffic flow west of the Collier Blvd traffic light so close to our exit from Esplanade will make this dangerous situation even worse. We would like to see a traffic light installed at our entrance. We would like to see Barron Collier keep this project on hold until Collier Blvd is widened and operational and require them to direct most of its traffic out the Collier Blvd. side. 2. Sight and Sound. We would request the developer put an opaque wall around their property. To reduce the impact of this development,Barron Collier should not be allowed to reduce the acreage devoted to preserve by 61% (8.85 acres to 3.45)as they have requested,rather keep it as originally stated. We request the buffer areas be enlarged and exotic trees replaced with trees of similar size. We request that outdoor lighting be pointed away from our neighborhood and facing downward.We request living units be no more than 2 stories in height. We request no business or living unit amenity have outside amplified noise(there is a water management area at the north end of the property and water does amplify noise). 3. April 28,2017 Amendment To The Master Plan.The revision calls for even more housing than the original plan. It asked for a group home in Tract A with only a slight reduction in commercial space in addition to the requested 349 living units in Tract C. This is a large change from the September 2015 Master Plan done by Grady Minor Engineers. Respectfully,please do not grant these changes. We would like to attend the Planning Commission Meeting but unfortunately we will be out of the country on May 18th. Thank you for your consideration. 1 Sincerely, Michael&Jane Rollins 9368 Terresina Dr.,Naples,FL 34119 2 LykinsDave From: Howard L. Sosnik <HSosnik@kspcwills.com> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 7:01 PM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Subject: Addie's Corner, request for appointment with Board of County Commissioners Dear Members of the Board of County Commissioners, I am a resident of Esplanade Golf and Country Club, along Immokalee Rd. in Naples.The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the east of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres.The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15' to 25' in width, with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through and above the thin tree line. In addition,the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Other members of our Community met with members of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in March and April. In both cases, we were encouraged to negotiate with the developer, Barron Collier. It was specifically recommended that we request Barron Collier to step back the buildings away from the western boundary with Esplanade.Although Barron Collier has been cooperative and is discussing ways to screen their buildings from our community,they have not welcomed Commissioner suggestions to step back their buildings from Esplanade. I am aware of the Planning Commission Public hearing scheduled for May 18'which will include these matters on its agenda. I would like to request a meeting with the Board prior to that, preferable the afternoon of May 16th or anytime on May 17th if these dates do not work please let me know and perhaps we can schedule a different time)to articulate some of our particular concerns including: • Require the developer to "step back"their buildings no closer than 100'from Esplanade property • Provide landscaping and plantings to screen the new buildings comparable to the current view • Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories • Limit the project to no more than 200 residential units. (current zoning allows far less) Thank you very much. Howard L. Sosnik 516-313-3239 Esplanade Golf&Country Club LykinsDave From: DAVID FIX <davedds@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 1:55 PM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Subject: Addie's Corner development Project#20150001776 May 9, 2017 My wife and I are residents of Florida and of Esplanade Golf and Country Club. Our property is adjacent to the proposed Barron Collier development at Addie's Corner on Immokalee Road in Naples. We are writing to you in order to express our concerns about the many changes to the existing PUD that Barron Collier is planning. First, we would like to have the the nature preserve maintained at he originally planned 8.85 acres. We would like to have an opaque Type C buffer of at least 100 feet along Esplanade Boulevard. We also disapprove of the construction of multiple four story residential buildings on this property. Driving along Immokalee, we see no other existing four story buildings. Barron Collier knew what the exixting PUD was when he initially purchased this property. There is no reason to even bother writing zoning laws if changes like this are allowed for one individual. Sincerely, Dave and Alayne Fix 8656 Amour Court Naples, Florida 1 LykinsDave From: William L McGee Jr <willie581950@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:54 AM To: Fiala Donna; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue Subject: Addie's Corner Project#20150001776 Attachments: Addie's Corner.docx Thank you for your attention. William L. McGee Jr. 1 William L McGee Jr 8674 Amour Court Naples Florida 34119 9 May 2017 RE: Addie's Corner Development Collier County PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT #20150001776 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I am a resident of Esplanade Golf and Country club, along Immokalee Road. The current view entering the property is completely wooded and secluded to the east of our entrance. I am told the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. With this change the residents are likely to see the 4 story buildings and also increase the sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment on my street. This will seriously degrade the views and property values. I would like to ask that you consider these requests: Limit the heights of the buildings or require step-back heights. Locate the building further east allowing for a larger buffer. Limit the project to no more than 200 residential units. I hope you understand our concerns and treat this as if you were a neighbor. Thank you for your consideration, William L. McGee, Jr. Geraldine M. McGee LykinsDave From: Nancy DeMarco <nancyd@carlawyernj.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 1:09 PM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue Subject: Addie's Corner Development - Project#20150001776 Attachments: current view.pdf Importance: High Collier County Commissioners & Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project# 20150001776 Ladies and Gentlemen: I am a resident of Esplanade Golf and Country Club, along Immokalee Rd. in Naples. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the east of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15' to 25' in width, with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through the thin tree line. In addition,the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line, 4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values. We encourage you to require the following: *A Type C buffer of at least 100 feet *Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories, *Locate their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property *Limit the project to no more than 200 residential units. (current zoning allows far less) The attached file shows the current view, side by side with what we are concerned will be seen after construction. I hope you can understand our concerns. Sincerely, Perry A. Pittenger 9091 Sorreno Court Naples, Florida 34119 i Nancy DeMarco Legal Assistant to Perry A. Pittenger,Esq. Schiller&Pittenger,P.C. 1771 Front Street,Suite D Scotch Plains,New Jersey 07076 Voice:908-490-0444 Fax: 908-490-0420 Email:nancyd@carlawyernj.comrr CONNECT: SP !i7 I This Transmission Is Intended Only for the Party to Whom It Is Addressed and May Contain Legally Privileged and Confidential Information.If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any use,dissemination,or copying of this transmission is prohibited.If you have received this transmission in error,please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and return this transmission and all copies to us.Thank you. 2 4 A 2 Z4 1i 1 _ / I r '& , V ' , ,,, i . v t -, A v4:, • ,,.,..‘ ,1.,1, ,s'l J 4 E_ 5 g , .71-,.-: 8 P ij ti .i. EO II 131 • Li rtb. El 0 111611 _0 s ';' ltd , • .a, p I 4?� r- 1ill g . r , - ', 43 `., 172 6 ?x PA E ti .i r W LykinsDave From: Heidi Holley <heidihimlerholley@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 8:18 AM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry Subject: Addie's Corner development Immokolee Rd and Collier Blvd May 10, 2017 Dear Collier County Commissioners, Collier County Principal Planner and Chief Hearing Examiner, I recently bought a home and moved from Minnesota to Collier County in October of 2016.As a new resident of Florida I am concerned about the new development planned adjacent to our community in Esplanade, Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776.As a voting resident I am very concerned about the impact this project will have on the traffic, natural preserve and noise level.The amount of traffic on Immokolee Boulevard is already overloaded and very stressful to drive on. Part of our attraction to this area was the natural beauty of the preserve and I hope in no uncertain terms you will allow it to be reduced in an way.The removal of the exotic trees along our property line will add not only to greater noise levels but to a viewscape that is no longer serene and calming. Please ensure that the trees removed will be replaced by equally large sized trees. I am unable to attend the hearing as we are traveling to Minnesota for a few months. Collier County is our new home and I hope you will do everything possible to protect our property line.Thank you. Sincerely, Heidi Holley 9230 Rialto Lane Naples, FL 34119 1 LykinsDave From: Ronald Fischer <rfischer@certitudegroup.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 7:29 PM To: StrainMark; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; JohnsonEric Cc: SaundersBurt Subject: Re:Addie's Corner development, Collier County Planning Commission Project# 20150001776 To: Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner We are residents of Esplanade Golf and Country Club, along Immokalee Rd. in Naples. After living in Kensington for 15 years, we wanted to move into a newer community that had a bigger preserve area and noticeably less commercial noises and development. We found this in Esplanade and have been quite impressed with the ongoing commitment to the preserve principle and limited adjacent commercial development. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the east of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer of this parcel has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. The proposed master plan also shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15' to 25' in width, with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must also be removed as a result of this development. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through and above the thin tree line. In addition, the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on our road, Amour Court. We understand that members of our Community have met with members of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in March and April. In both cases, they were encouraged to negotiate with the developer, Barron Collier. It was specifically recommended that we request Barron Collier to step back the buildings away from the western boundary with Esplanade. Although Barron Collier has been cooperative and is discussing ways to screen their buildings from our community, they have not welcomed Commissioner suggestions to step back their buildings from Esplanade. We encourage you to: • Require the developer to step back their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property • Provide landscaping and plantings to screen the new buildings comparable to the current view • Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories • Limit the project to no more than 200 residential units. (current zoning allows far less) Thank you very much for your consideration Sincerely, 1 Ron and Lynn Fischer 8625 Amour Ct Naples, FL 34119 617-953-0174 2 LykinsDave From: Ronald Fischer <rfischer@certitudegroup.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 7:42 PM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue; StrainMark; Johnson Eric Subject: We are asking for your support on the proposed adjustments to Collier County Planning Project# 20150001776 To: Collier County Commissioners & Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner We are residents of Esplanade Golf and Country Club, along Immokalee Rd. in Naples. After living in Kensington for 15 years, we wanted to move into a newer community that had a bigger preserve area and noticeably less commercial noises and development. We found this in Esplanade and have been quite impressed with the ongoing commitment to the preserve principle and limited adjacent commercial development. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the east of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer of this parcel has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. The proposed master plan also shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15' to 25' in width, with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must also be removed as a result of this development. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through and above the thin tree line. In addition, the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on our road, Amour Court. We understand that members of our Community have met with members of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in March and April. In both cases, they were encouraged to negotiate with the developer, Barron Collier. It was specifically recommended that we request Barron Collier to step back the buildings away from the western boundary with Esplanade. Although Barron Collier has been cooperative and is discussing ways to screen their buildings from our community, they have not welcomed Commissioner suggestions to step back their buildings from Esplanade. We encourage you to: • Require the developer to step back their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property • Provide landscaping and plantings to screen the new buildings comparable to the current view • Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories • Limit the project to no more than 200 residential units. (current zoning allows far less) Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, 1 Ron and Lynn Fischer 8625 Amour Ct Naples, FL 34119 617-953-0174 2 LykinsDave From: Tom Coffey <ticoffey@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 9:01 AM To: TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; StrainMark; HomiakKaren; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; FryerEdwin; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; BellowsRay;JohnsonEric Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue; Barbara Coffey Subject: 5-18-17 Meeting Addie's Corner Development May 13, 2017 Collier County Commissioners &Planning Commissioners Mr. Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mr. Mark Strain, Chair of Planning Commission and Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner development Planning Commission Project# PL20150001776 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We are homeowner's in Esplanade Golf and Country Club which is situated along Immokalee Road in Naples. One of the major factors in deciding to build our home in Esplanade was the fact that there were significant preserves bordering most of the property. We believe the proposed `Addie's Corner' development will significantly decrease the desirability of the community and decrease property values. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a preserve area to the East of Esplanade Boulevard, with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. This will clearly decrease the overall appeal of the community. Even with the existing tree line, 4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values. We encourage you to require the following: 1 •Do not permit a reduction of the existing preserve •Limit the project to no more than the number of units that current zoning allows for •Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories •A buffer of at least 100 feet •Locate their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property If you would like to discuss any matters relative to this proposed development we can be reached through email at: ticoffey@gmail.com or via cell phone at: 610-716-7915. Thank you for your consideration and I hope you can appreciate our concerns. Sincerely, Thomas & Barbara Coffey 9114 Trivoli Terrace Naples, FL 34119 2 LykinsDave From: Lois Pogyor <Ipogyor@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 12:36 AM To: SaundersBurt Cc: LykinsDave Subject: Development of Addie's Corner Dear Mr. Saunders: We are residents in the Esplanade community and are deeply concerned about the planned development for the property to the east of Esplanade along Immokalee Road, known as Addie's Corner(for clarity I will reference the property by this name). One of the things that attracted us to the Esplanade development was the large amount of both natural and planned landscaping. This would include the wooded area to the east of the entrance to the community that adjoins Addie's Corner property. With the proposed development of Addie's Corner, much of this natural landscape would disappear, leaving a few trees and a view of 4-story apartment buildings instead. This is not a view that I would like to have on entering my home community. If we had wanted a view of tall buildings, we would have purchased property in one of the many high rise communities in Naples. I understand that an owner has the right to develop property, but not necessarily to change the zoning to fit his or her needs and financial parameters. Just as we purchased property zoned and developed with a certain ambiance, we expected that adjoining properties would be developed in a similar manner, not changed to to suit the needs of a developer. I believe that this is referred to as "spot zoning". After destruction of natural landscape, this developer wants to build four story buildings that do not fit in with any of the surrounding communities. This density will severely impact both the views of the surrounding communities and the traffic on Immokalee Road, which is already very heavy. I am not certain where this development's entrance and exit would be placed, but certainly hope it is NOT approved for Immokalee Road. In summary, I would ask that the Zoning Commission would only change the zoning of this property to require: 1 - A dense buffer of at least 100 feet 2 - Locate any buildings at least 100 feet from the Esplanade property 3 - Limit the height of the buildings to TWO stories in keeping with the surrounding communities 4 - Limit the project to a maximum of 200 residential homes/units in keeping it more in line with current zoning. In closing, I would suggest that property owners have a right to expect a consistent zoning in the area in which they purchase a home. That is one purpose of zoning regulations. An investor should not be allowed to purchase property with the intent of changing the zoning to suit his or her financial needs. This would be unfair to current property owners and would defeat the purpose that zoning laws and regulations serve. Sincerely, Lois and Bob Pogyor, Home Owners in the Esplanade Community i LykinsDave From: Mark Scimio <mascimio@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:26 AM To: pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; StrainMark; JohnsonEric Cc: McDanielBill; SolisAndrew; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Subject: Addie's Corner Development Attachments: Addies Corner Development Letter of Concern.pdf Dear Commissioners: Please see my attached letter concerning Addie's Corner Development Project#20150001776. Thank you, Mark A. Scimio 8870 Vaccaro Court Naples, FL 34119 i Collier County Commissioners Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson,Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain,Chief Hearing Examiner Re:Addie's Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776. We live in Esplanade Golf&Country Club,on Immokalee Rd.We have 3 primary concerns with the Addie's Corner Development: 1. Shared Access Point.Current plans show a shared access point(driveway)between Esplanade and Addie's Corner.Since this is shown after the Esplanade security gate,we are concerned who will be entering our community. Even if a separate security gate is placed there,the paved road will make it easy for pedestrians and bicyclists to enter our private community.Headlights from vehicles will shine into the rear of the homes on Amour Court. 2. Traffic. It is already very difficult to exit Esplanade onto Immokalee Rd or enter Esplanade with a left turn from the eastbound lane.In addition,cars making a U-turn opposite our driveway from the eastbound to the westbound lane add an additional challenge.Even if only 150 residential units are permitted,the additional residential and retail traffic exiting Addie's Corner will create longer delays and more of a safety issue.We understand significantly more development is planned at Collier and Immokalee. Immokalee Rd.cannot handle the current volume of traffic. 3. Removal of trees,loss of property value.The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the right of Esplanade Blvd.,with many tall trees.We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres.The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15'to 25'in width,with a small area at 30'in width.We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed.With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees,residents are likely to see the buildings through the thin tree line.In addition,the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line,4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values.If 8.85 acres was determined to be sufficient for the prior property owner,why shouldn't the proposed development be held to the same size? We encourage you to: a. Remove the Shared Access Point between Esplanade and Addie's Corner b. Widen Immokalee Rd.before allowing any more development. c. Not allow the reduction of the preserve,or alternatively,increase the buffer to a minimum of 150'and require a type C buffer. d. Permit the 2 types of exotic trees to remain within the buffer,or if they must be removed,then require that they be replaced. e. Limit this development to 2 story buildings and no more than 150 residential units. f. Require any lighting to be directed away from Esplanade. /1f4eLA. Gt ,.i 07P V4ccarc Gt_ 31141 17 Name Address Date LykinsDave From: Thomas Kleck <tkleck@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 11:17 AM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Addies corner Tom & Judy Kleck Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples 8864 Savona Ct. Naples, FL 34119 Tom's Cell : 317-997-3416 Judy's Cell : 317-408-4162 tkleck@comcast.net judykleck@comcast.net Collier County Commissioners Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776. We live in Esplanade Golf& Country Club, on Immokalee Rd. We have 3 primary concerns with the Addie's Corner Development: 1. Shared Access Point. Current plans show a shared access point (driveway) between Esplanade and Addie's Corner. Since this is shown after the Esplanade security gate, we are concerned who will be entering our community. Even if a separate security gate is placed there, the paved road will make it easy for pedestrians and bicyclists to enter our private community. Headlights from vehicles will shine into the rear of the homes on Amour Court. 2. Traffic. It is already very difficult to exit Esplanade onto Immokalee Rd or enter Esplanade with a left turn from the eastbound lane. In addition, cars making a U-turn opposite our driveway from the eastbound to the westbound lane add an additional challenge. Even if only 150 residential units are permitted,the additional residential and retail traffic exiting Addie's Corner will create longer delays and more of a safety issue. We understand significantly more development is planned at Collier and Immokalee. Immokalee Rd. cannot handle the current volume of traffic. 3. Removal of trees, loss of property value.The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the right of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres.The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15' to 25' in width, with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through the thin tree line. In addition, the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line,4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values. If 8.85 acres was determined to be sufficient for the prior property owner, why shouldn't the proposed development be held to the same size? We encourage you to: 1 1. Remove the Shared Access Point between Esplanade and Addie's Corner 2. Widen Immokalee Rd. before allowing any more development. 3. Not allow the reduction of the preserve, or alternatively, increase the buffer to a minimum of 150' and require a type C buffer. 4. Permit the 2 types of exotic trees to remain within the buffer, or if they must be removed, then require that they be replaced. 5. Limit this development to 2 story buildings and no more than 150 residential units. 6. Require any lighting to be directed away from Esplanade. Name Address Date 2 LykinsDave From: jmaiella <maiellajoe@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:42 AM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; 'DonnaFiala@colliergov.net Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue; Lily Subject: Addie's Corner Development Attachments: BC 5-1-17_ Esplanade-Plan plan view.pdf; ATT00001.htm Importance: High May 17, 2017 Collier County Commissioners &Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776 We are residents of Esplanade Golf and Country Club, along Immokalee Rd. in Naples.The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the east of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres.The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15'to 25' in width, with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through the thin tree line. In addition,the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line,4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values.We encourage you to require the following: • A Type C buffer of at least 100 feet • Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories, • Locate their buildings no closer than 100'from Esplanade property • Limit the project to no more than 200 residential units. (current zoning allows far less) The attached file shows the current view, side by side with what we are concerned will be seen after construction. I hope you can understand our concerns. Sincerely,i Joseph & Lily Maiella 8865 Savona Ct Naples, FL 34119 i ' i' vVP!Iii - T C 00 Z I ;141 0 _J z_.....i..01 i Z 311411 1 LL,ZI I O.III ii/li CL 0 ;co 0 E i < g f: H CO 0 ‹ QW I CO rpi t„1111 i #111111. I 4' fl". ,ek ., . , ., 7r1 . „ I • , 1 1 1 .. likieri —,„ 'CH' ififEr '75;11.0 .:, , -- . rill B. r . i awl ,,- .,. a_..,2„„,„ AoL 1.0 i_iiry.,-: PA no .. P. ' • xt .1.1 til i NZ 1 ,,,,t. .: —MI6.* ,•' .9. lig _ go , it 1 ,.,,,, • ‘ 3 . ow do_ ill! ,.. : -,.... ,..., . ,... P- ------- 3 -... i,,. ,' . !, fl, , - RI t..!r—P,-19,4181 "•i'•__? 1 s ' I ' „„,,, . -.. ?......, , , .... 4 :.•'' '' I !, ,i ilrklk..:711112,i 'il -'2.-1,11 . :!•.•, :4 .. 1 t4_. 1914:111S -:-", ' .s... ._..._ 6 it.,............„_, ,i.. Lw.immi ., _...... —41. —' r it.:,! i.\I . - .• r1=116 W..''1.'.1-4ji*iji"I .:;:r.cf\::::;:lr''.' 1':'1- „.....,:, ' '::,-,'''''-'::''':,_' 'Fr"-g4'''''.''''::';',.!:::::-",'' ', --.• '‘''' ':':';'-' '.,111 ., # . . . ' AN ' ',-'44. • ,„ .,..... . ', '''' — — ''''',,,, . i•i,,1i,... .. .... .. . CD •0'. '''''14..''' ' 4' '''- ' it . ,. . it . • . -V.•T ,-,::..' .''''. .. ,.'.4:4 4- 4 4.'4 \ jolt. ., . ... -- .... ,... - - ,...„, .. . -. '-- . . • .."'” '."7--'—^-,<..„—••-,_ . ---- iiii'-'7.:': -<-:;T::. —_,.,— - - . ' 4 LykinsDave From: Irene Bond <ibond2010@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:15 AM To: TaylorPenny; andysolis@collier.net; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; StrainMark; HomiakKaren; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; FryerEdwin; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; BellowsRay;JohnsonEric Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue Subject: 5-18-17 Meeting Addie's Corner Development May 16, 2017 Collier County Commissioners &Planning Commissioners Mr. Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mr. Mark Strain, Chair of Planning Commission and Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner development Planning Commission Project#PL20150001776 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: As Canadians who winter in Florida, we understand and accept our limited influence on local governance. We would,however, like to pass along why we chose Naples, Collier County and the new Esplanade Golf and Country Club situated along Immokalee Road to purchase our home vs. other areas in Florida. Collier County is beautiful in its design because of its green spaces and low-density building. It doesn't feel like a concrete jungle as many Cities do. The preserve areas are what make Collier County special in our eyes and are the major reason we chose this community. We believe the proposed `Addie's Corner' development will significantly decrease the desirability of the community, decrease property values and add to possible safety risks due to the pressures on an already extremely busy Immokalee Road(with the additional development at the Collier Corner). We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres with 4 story buildings much larger than anything in the area. We encourage you to: • Not permit a reduction of the existing preserve • Limit the project to no more than the number of units that current zoning allows for • Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories • Require a buffer of at least 100 feet • Locate their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property Please vote to maintain what, in our eyes, makes Naples, Collier County and Esplanade Golf and Country Club a beautiful and desirable place to stay, play and invest. We can be reached through email at: ibond2010@gmail.com or via cell phone at: 807-633-7269. 1 LykinsDave From: William Nemeth <wnemeth@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 1:34 PM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue Subject: Addie's Corner development - Collier County Planning Commission Project# 20150001776 Attachments: collier commissioner letter- Naples Esplanade copy.pdf; ATT00001.txt Attached is a letter of comment regarding the Addie's Corner development. We appreciate your time and efforts in careful consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, William A& Laura D Nemeth 8652 Amour Court Naples, Florida 34119 wnemeth@icloud.com (216)496-2995 1 FROM THE DESK OF WILLIAM & LAURA NEMETH May 17,2017 Collier County Commissioners&Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson,Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain,Chief Hearing Examiner Re:Addie's Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776 To: BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net' <BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net>; 'AndySolis@colliergov.net' <AndySolis@colliergov.net>; 'BurtSaunders@colliergov.net' <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; 'PennyTaylor@colliergov.net' <PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; 'Donna Fiala@colliergov.net' DonnaFiala@colliergov.net Cc: 'MichaelBrownlee@colliergov.net' <MichaelBrownlee@colliergov.net>; 'AngelaGoodner@colliergov.net' <AngelaGoodner@colliergov.net>; 'DaveLykins@colliergov.net' <DaveLykins@colliergov.net>; 'SherryGreco@colliergov.net' <SherryGreco@colliergov.net>; 'SueFilson@colliergov.net' <SueFilson@colliergov.net My wife and I are residents of Esplanade Golf and Country Club,along Immokalee Rd. in Naples.The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area consisting of many tall trees. It lies to the east of Esplanade Blvd.and was a significant reason for our choosing both the development and lot where we have settled. We understand the developer of the adjacent property has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres.The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15'to 25'in width,with a small area at 30' in width.We are aware that two types of exotic trees must be removed.The narrow buffer and removal of the exotic trees would result in residents seeing the buildings through what is left of a thin tree line. The thinned tree line will increase sound and light which will negatively impact the enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line, four-story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values.We encourage you to require the following: •AType C buffer of at least 100 feet • Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories, • Locate their buildings no closer than 100'from Esplanade property 8652 AMOUR CT, NAPLES, FL 34119 • Limit the project to no more than 200 residential units.(current zoning allows far less) The attached pictures show the current view,side by side with what we are concerned will be seen after construction.We hope you consider our concerns and realize the negative impact it will have on our community. Sincerely yours, r‘. ( 1°11/V1 William A. Nemeth & Laura D. Nemeth ._,.�.. w y. •. .� .._. .. v ._ y M • 4 8652 AMOUR CT, NAPLES, FL 34119 LykinsDave From: Layton Elliott <laytonelliott4@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:23 PM To: TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; StrainMark; HomiakKaren; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; FryerEdwin; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; BellowsRay;JohnsonEric; BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue Cc: Bobbi Elliott Subject: Addie's Corner Development May 17, 2017 Collier County Commissioners & Planning Commissioners Mr. Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mr. Mark Strain, Chair of Planning Commission and Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner development Planning Commission Project # PL20150001776 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We are homeowner's in Esplanade Golf and Country Club which is situated along Immokalee Road in Naples. One of the major factors in deciding to build our home in Esplanade was the fact that there were significant preserves bordering most of the property. We believe the proposed `Addie's Corner' development will significantly decrease the desirability of the community and decrease property values. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a preserve area to the East of Esplanade Boulevard, with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. This will clearly decrease the overall appeal of the community. Even with the existing tree line, 4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values. We encourage you to require the following: 1 •Do not permit a reduction of the existing preserve •Limit the project to no more than the number of units that current zoning allows for •Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories •A buffer of at least 100 feet •Locate their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property If you would like to discuss any matters relative to this proposed development we can be reached through email at: antiochhmPyahoo.com. Thank you for your consideration and I hope you can appreciate our concerns. Sincerely, Layton and Bobbi Elliott 9110 Trivoli Terrace Naples, FL 34119 2 LykinsDave From: Pam Toorock <pamwrighttoorock@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:13 PM To: SaundersBurt Cc: Pam Toorock Subject: Town Hall Meeting District 3 Dear Mr. Saunders, I attended the Town Hall Meeting for District 3 yesterday at North Baptist Church. I appreciate your candor and thoughtfulness with regard to the concerns expressed by those in attendance. I also attended the Open Session on Addie's Corner last week.The end result of that meeting was"there is little we can do" as this project was approved in 2011. To summarize my concern, of the 11 current projects which opened yesterday's meeting, 6 directly affect the traffic on Immokalee Road. A road which will "fail" in 5 years.The projects discussed do not include Tree Farms nor the Pelican Nursery development which will have tremendous impact to the "failure" of Immokalee Road.As some expressed yesterday, Immokalee Road has already"failed" . Despite these realizations, we continue to add projects and traffic to the "Activity Center" of Collier and Immokalee Roads. I will not repeat what you already heard yesterday but do suggest that the traffic survey which was completed is flawed. In my opinion, it would be prudent to conduct another traffic survey after the current bridge construction is completed on Collier and Immokalee Roads. We would then see the affect of this new construction as I do not believe it will significantly relieve the congestion we now see on Immokalee. I thank you for your continuing support of our concerns and would like to add, "something has to be done "NOW"! Pam Wright-Toorock The Quarry 9390 Coper Canyon Court Naples, Florida 34120 1 LykinsDave From: gheben@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:57 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: No U-Turn at Immokalee Rd &951 Commissioner Saunders, Thank you for having the Town Hall Meeting last night. I did not speak at the event, however I would also like to voice my concern regarding the intersection of Immokalee Rd and 951. Specifically the U-Turn which allows one to travel East on Immokalee Rd, make the U-Turn, then travel West on Immokalee. Or should I say "the former U-Turn". It is nonsensical that this U- Turn has been taken away. I live in Pebblebrooke Lakes and my family and I use the Immokalee Rd entrance/exit getting in and out of our community. Taking away the U-Turn has made trying to travel West on Immokalee Rd not only burdensome and inconvenient, but also more dangerous. I see no explicable reason as to why the U-Turn has been taken away. There is a cement barrier on the North side of Immokalee Rd that protects the construction workers @ Addies Corner. This barrier has been there for a long time. Nothing has changed. But now all of a sudden no U-Turn. There is no risk to worker safety by having a U-Turn there. Absolutely none. So instead of being able to make the U-Turn in the morning, we had to go East on Immokalee Rd well past 951. Unfortunately we ( my wife and I both work West of 1-75 and my son drives to Gulf Coast High School) cannot make U-Turns at the first two areas that allow U-Turns because the volume of traffic traveling West on Immokalee Rd will not allow one to do so in a safe manner. These U-Turns do not have traffic signals. Cars are traveling at high rates of speed and are bumper to bumper traveling West on Immokalee Rd East of 951 as I'm sure you know. We would literally have to go out a couple of miles and it was still difficult to make a safe U-Turn. And if we did make the U-Turn safely, we've already spent an extra 10 minutes. So then we tried turning South onto 951 and then make a U-Turn in front of Publix at Pebblebrooke Shoppes.. This too is risky. Although the North flowing traffic on 951 is not as bad as the West flowing traffic on Immokalee Rd, the width of the lanes to make the U-Turn are narrower and negotiating the turn is more difficult . One has to make the turn slower, thus exposing oneself to oncoming traffic for a longer period of time. And again, 10 more minutes added to the commute for no apparent reason in my mind. But an unintended consequence has evolved out of this misguided decision to eliminate the U-Turn at Immokalee Rd and 951. People are driving out of Pebblebrooke, illegally crossing the Eastbound Immokalee Rd lanes and going into an oncoming turn lane and then making a 90 degree left hand turn onto Westbound Immokalee Rd. Very dangerous. Not only dangerous to them but also to the Westbound drivers who are not expecting cars to appear in front of them. I haven't even mentioned the fact that the CCSO is now giving drivers tickets for making the U- Turn @ Immokalee and 951. `Just pouring salt into the wound. So in closing, I hope you will look into this issue. On the surface, one would think that eliminating a U-Turn at an intersection would not have much of an affect on one's quality of life. But this elimination really has. And there doesn't seem to be a good reason why it was done so. Thank you for your time and thanks for making the County Commission sane again. Sincerely, 1 Greg Heben gheben@comcast.net 2 LykinsDave From: Cheryl 011ila <cherylollila@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 11:30 AM To: SaundersBurt Cc: Roger Gifford; Jackie Cahill;Joe Boudreau; Chip Harrington Subject: District 3 Town Hall Meeting on 5-22-17 Attachments: Commissioner Saunders.docx Good Morning, Commissioner Saunders, I am the President of the Quarry Community Association (QCA), Inc. and met you at the Town Hall Meeting on Monday. Attached,for your review, is a letter from the QCA Board of Directors concerning topics discussed at Monday's meeting. Sincerely, Cheryl 011ila 1 DATE: May 25, 2017 TO: Collier County Commissioner Burt Saunders RE: Town Hall Meeting — 5-22-17 Dear Commissioner Saunders: Thank you for taking the time to allow me to introduce myself to you at the Town Hall Meeting for District 3 on Monday evening at North Naples Baptist Church. I commend you for taking the initiative to hold the meeting and allow residents the opportunity to ask questions and articulate our concerns. As the President of the Quarry Association (QCA), Inc., I believe I speak for many Quarry homeowners that wearevery concerned about the level of development Immokalee Roadr our community and the impact it will have on traffic o As you know, over half of the 11 projects Road.reviewedlt beat yond d comprehensionnday's i directly impact the traffic on Immokalee to me that, while representatives from the Growth Management Department explained the status of the projects, representatives from the Transportation Engineering Division (standing right next to them) explained that Immokalee Road is scheduled to "fail" by year 2021, due to worsening traffic congestion resulting from continued planned development in this area. To make matters even worse, these projects do not yet comprehend the development of Tree Farm or Pelican Nursery — further exacerbating the traffic congestion. I asked you and the representatives at the meeting why you would continue to approve projects when you know that Immokalee Road will be unable (and some would argue is currently unable) to handle the increased traffic load. I also explained that my understands notis t aot thelVaVaunnderbilt Beach Road extension from Collier Blvd. east willcompleted 2023. You and the representatives at the meeting agreed with my understanding. When I asked what is the County's response to the residents along the Immokalee Road corridor to deal with all of this there are congestion tanned `"minor" traffic t f you could provide, the response was thatp relief points, for example, modifications to Tree Farm Rd. These planned modifications are clearly inadequate; otherwise, your Transportation Engineering Division representatives would not be advising that Immokalee Road will fail. I support development in our area. However, I am unable to understand how the County Commissioners, in good conscience and the important decision-making role they were elected to perform, can support these projects when they know the roads can't handle the new development. Furthermore, why would the Collier County Planning Commission support projects that allow for high-density populations (i.e. Addison Place — a 240- unit apartment complex on the northwest corner of Immokalee Road and CR951)? I respectfully request, on behalf of Quarry homeowners who oppose development along Immokalee Road with a known failed road to support the development, that you and your fellow Commissioners place a moratorium on further Immokalee Road development until you can address the traffic situation. It does not make any sense to allow for continued growth and development when a road is scheduled to fail. You must fix this problem before you continue to add to the nightmare of traffic congestion in our area. Sincerely, Cheryl 011ila Cheryl 011ila President, Quarry Community Association (QCA), Inc. and on behalf of QCA Board Members: Joe Boudreau Jackie Cahill Roger Gifford Chip Harrington LykinsDave From: Bill White <cupologist@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 7:57 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: New full-time Quarry Homeowner " Dear Commissioner Saunders: As a new home owner in the Quarry I am copying part of Cheryl 011ila's well written letter dated 5/25/2017. ... "However, I am unable to understand how the County Commissioners, in good conscience and the important decision-making role they were elected to perform, can support these projects when they know the roads can't handle the new developments. Furthermore, why would the Collier County Planning Commission support projects that allow for high-density populations (i.e. Addison Place — a 240- unit apartment complex on the northwest corner of Immokalee Road and CR 951)? I respectfully request, on behalf of Quarry homeowners who oppose development along Immokalee Road with a known failed road to support the development, that you and your fellow Commissioners place a moratorium on further Immokalee Road development until you can address the traffic situation. It does not make any sense to allow for continued growth and development when a road is scheduled to fail. You must fix this problem before you continue to add to the nightmare of traffic congestion in our area." Sincerely, Cheryl 011ila" Commissioner Saunders, please place a stop to any further development along Immokalee Road before we are put in a situation to sell are homes due to the County Commissioners' poor planning. I am sure you realize the value of our homes will decrease. Who in his right mind would want to live in this area and fight the traffic battle daily? Looking forward to hearing your comments. Thank you. William L. White 9189 Treeside Court, Naples,F1.34120 "That you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.". Colossians 1 :10 2 LykinsDave From: Amy Lawlor <amylawlor.interiors@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 4:33 PM To: TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; StrainMark; HomiakKaren; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; FryerEdwin; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; BellowsRay;JohnsonEric; BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue Cc: Robert Lawlor; Amy Lawlor; Barbara Coffey Subject: Addie's Corner Development Collier County Commissioners & Planning Commissioners Mr. Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mr. Mark Strain, Chair of Planning Commission and Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner development Planning Commission Project # PL20150001776 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We are homeowner's in Esplanade Golf and Country Club which is situated along Immokalee Road in Naples. One of the major factors in deciding to build our home in Esplanade was the fact that there were significant preserves bordering most of the property. We believe the proposed 'Addie's Corner' development will significantly decrease the desirability of the community and decrease property values. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a preserve area to the East of Esplanade Boulevard, with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. This will clearly decrease the overall appeal of the community. Even with the existing tree line, 4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values. We encourage you to require the following: •Do not permit a reduction of the existing preserve •Limit the project to no more than the number of units that current zoning allows for •Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories •A buffer of at least 100 feet •Locate their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property If you would like to discuss any matters relative to this proposed development we can be reached through email at: drboblawlor@gmail.comor via cell phone at: 610-48-2629. Thank you for your consideration and I hope you can appreciate our concerns. Sincerely, Bob and Amy Lawlor 8810 Vaccaro CT. Naples, FL 34119 2 LykinsDave From: Michael Toorock <mtoorock@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 8:09 AM To: SaundersBurt Cc: DAVE THOMAS Commissioner Saunders: I join with Dr.Thomas and countless others calling upon you to place a moratorium of developments such as Addie's Corner and Tree Farm until our county's infrastructure can support the immense increased burden that will be imposed by these projects. Our every day lives will become unbearable and our property values will plummet. I know I would not be fortunate enough to live in The Quarry had the Planning Board not permitted our development. However,there is development and overdevelopment, and we are at that point now. Please use your good offices for the thousands who will be affected and not a few developers. Thank you for your time and attention. Respectfully, Michael S.Toorock Sent from my iPhone 1 LykinsDave From: Linda Weid <Iindaweid@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 8:14 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Concern regarding development Dear Commissioner Saunders, I am writing to express my deep concern over the planned development along the Immokalee road corridor. As a Quarry resident, I have experienced first hand the adverse impact the current traffic has on our day-to-day lives. I can only envision the challenges we will endure once the Race Trac and Addison Corner are complete. The future development of the Tree Farm and Pelican Nursery will only compound the issue. We purchased a home in The Quarry 9 years ago. We choose Collier County because of its natural beauty and solid economics. I fully comprehend the importance of growth and development to sustain a thriving community. However, the proposed aggressive development will have the opposite effect. Future "land use planning"must consider the function of existing infrastructure. If not, our lifestyle will be compromised and our home values reduced. As our elected County Commissioner, you are responsible for providing services to protect the health, safety,welfare and quality of life of the citizens of Collier County. As these planned developments move forward, I encourage you to keep these responsibilities in the fore-front &treat it as your top priority. I look forward to hearing from you. Linda Weidmaier 9787 Nickel Ridge Circle Naples, FL 34120 1 LykinsDave From: gheben@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 9:34 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Re: No U-Turn at Immokalee Rd &951 Commissioner Saunders & Mr. Lykins, Thank you for giving us the U-Turn back! And thank you for listening to our concerns! Sincerely, Greg Heben From: "SaundersBurt" <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net> To: gheben@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 2:35:11 PM Subject: No U-Turn at Immokalee Rd & 951 Mr. Heben, On behalf of Commissioner Saunders, thank you for taking the time to attend the Town Hall meeting Monday night. As you observed during the meeting, the issue you described in your email was shared directly with Commissioner Saunders, Growth Management and County Transportation staff that were in attendance by several residents with similar concerns. The issue is clearly understood and it is anticipated the Transportation Division will be reviewing the situation to determine what remedies, short term and long term that may be available. Thank you for taking time to follow up from the meeting with an email and share your thoughts. We look forward to seeing you at similar meetings in the future. Regards... Dave Lykins Executive Coord. to District 3 Commissioner Burt Saunders davelykins@colliergov.net 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite#303 Naples, FL 34112 P: (2192„252-8603 cotger County 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:gheben@comcast.net [mailto:gheben@comcast.net] Sent:Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:57 PM To:SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net> Subject: No U-Turn at Immokalee Rd & 951 Commissioner Saunders, 1 Thank you for having the Town Hall Meeting last night. I did not speak at the event, however I would also like to voice my concern regarding the intersection of Immokalee Rd and 951. Specifically the U-Turn which allows one to travel East on Immokalee Rd, make the U-Turn, then travel West on Immokalee. Or should I say "the former U-Turn". It is nonsensical that this U- Turn has been taken away. I live in Pebblebrooke Lakes and my family and I use the Immokalee Rd entrance/exit getting in and out of our community. Taking away the U-Turn has made trying to travel West on Immokalee Rd not only burdensome and inconvenient, but also more dangerous. I see no explicable reason as to why the U-Turn has been taken away. There is a cement barrier on the North side of Immokalee Rd that protects the construction workers @ Addies Corner. This barrier has been there for a long time. Nothing has changed. But now all of a sudden no U-Turn. There is no risk to worker safety by having a U-Turn there. Absolutely none. So instead of being able to make the U-Turn in the morning, we had to go East on Immokalee Rd well past 951. Unfortunately we ( my wife and I both work West of 1-75 and my son drives to Gulf Coast High School) cannot make U-Turns at the first two areas that allow U-Turns because the volume of traffic traveling West on Immokalee Rd will not allow one to do so in a safe manner. These U-Turns do not have traffic signals. Cars are traveling at high rates of speed and are bumper to bumper traveling West on Immokalee Rd East of 951 as I'm sure you know. We would literally have to go out a couple of miles and it was still difficult to make a safe U-Turn. And if we did make the U-Turn safely, we've already spent an extra 10 minutes. So then we tried turning South onto 951 and then make a U-Turn in front of Publix at Pebblebrooke Shoppes.. This too is risky. Although the North flowing traffic on 951 is not as bad as the West flowing traffic on Immokalee Rd, the width of the lanes to make the U-Turn are narrower and negotiating the turn is more difficult . One has to make the turn slower, thus exposing oneself to oncoming traffic for a longer period of time. And again, 10 more minutes added to the commute for no apparent reason in my mind. But an unintended consequence has evolved out of this misguided decision to eliminate the U-Turn at Immokalee Rd and 951. People are driving out of Pebblebrooke, illegally crossing the Eastbound Immokalee Rd lanes and going into an oncoming turn lane and then making a 90 degree left hand turn onto Westbound Immokalee Rd. Very dangerous. Not only dangerous to them but also to the Westbound drivers who are not expecting cars to appear in front of them. I haven't even mentioned the fact that the CCSO is now giving drivers tickets for making the U- Turn @ Immokalee and 951. Just pouring salt into the wound. So in closing, I hope you will look into this issue. On the surface, one would think that eliminating a U-Turn at an intersection would not have much of an affect on one's quality of life. But this elimination really has. And there doesn't seem to be a good reason why it was done so. Thank you for your time and thanks for making the County Commission sane again. Sincerely, Greg Heben gheben(a�comcast.net 2 LykinsDave From: kathleen frisch <kathleenfrisch@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 4:17 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Immokalee Road Dear Commissioner Saunders, I am writing to express my deep concern over the planned development along the Immokalee road corridor. As a Quarry resident, I experience first hand,the adverse impact the current traffic has on our day-to-day lives. I can only envision the challenges we will endure once the Race Trac and Addison Corner are complete. The future development of the Tree Farm and Pelican Nursery will compound the issue. We moved to Florida three years ago to escape the slowly decaying state of Connecticut. We choose Collier County because of its natural beauty and solid economics. I fully comprehend the importance of growth and development to sustain a thriving community. However, the proposed aggressive development will have the opposite effect. Future "land use planning"must consider the function of existing infrastructure. If not, our lifestyle will be compromised and our home values reduced. As our elected County Commissioner, you are responsible for providing services to protect the health, safety, welfare and quality of life of the citizens of Collier County. As these planned developments move forward, I encourage you to keep these responsibilities a top-of-mind priority. I look forward to hearing from you. Kathleen M. Frisch 9735 Nickel Ridge Cir. Naples, Fl. 34120 1 LykinsDave From: happiness50 <happiness50@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:48 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Immokalee road and more development Dear Burt, Recently, I went to the planning hearing for variances on Addie's Corner planned unit development at Immokalee Road and County Road 951. I went to that meeting to hear what would be built just east of the main entrance of the Esplanade Golf&Country Club. Already living the traffic nightmare that currently exists. It was stated by the head of the county Transportation Engineering Division that Immokalee Road will fail (not handle the traffic load) in three years. That should have gotten the attention of planners and it should be put before the county commissioners immediately. Stop the development. Put a moratorium on all building, both commercial and residential, until the roads can handle the increased density. Fix the problem before and not after. Act don't react. Thank you for taking this into consideration. 1 LykinsDave From: Robert Jozaitis <rjozaitis@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 7:24 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: New development off Immokolee Rd. After MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_162994_1883319304.1496186630210" X-MB-Message-Source: WebUl X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: Alto (Android;2.7.2) X-AOL-IP: 76.101.197.117 X-Originating-IP: [76.101.197.117] =_Part_162994_1883319304.1496186630210 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr. Saunders, We live in a development off of Collier and Immokolee Rd. With the proposed new property being developed East of Esplinade I appears that it will become a traffic nightmare. Currently, without this new development, it's a traffic problem. Especially in season. I am asking to please reconsider this plan until the highway is proven to handle the immense amount of traffic that will be generated with this senseless development. Sincerely, Robert Jozaitis 9351 Marble Stone Dr. Naples, Fl. 34120 rjozaitis@verizon.net Sent from Alto =_Part_162994_1883319304.1496186630210 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr. Saunders, We live in a development off of Collier and Immokolee Rd. With the proposed new property being developed East of Esplinade I appears that  it will become a traffic nightmare. Currently, without this new development, it's a traffic problem. Especially in season. I am asking to please reconsider this plan until the highway is proven to handle the immense amount of traffic that will be generated with this senseless development. Sincerely, Robert Jozaitis 9351 Marble Stone Dr. Naples, Fl. 34120 rjozaitis@verizon.net . Sent from Alto = Part 162994 1883319304.1496186630210-- 2 1111 A 111111111111001111M11110 LykinsDave From: Linda Weid <lindaweid@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 8:14 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Concern regarding development Dear Commissioner Saunders, I am writing to express my deep concern over the planned development along the Immokalee road corridor. As a Quarry resident, I have experienced first hand the adverse impact the current traffic has on our day-to-day lives. I can only envision the challenges we will endure once the Race Trac and Addison Corner are complete. The future development of the Tree Farm and Pelican Nursery will only compound the issue. We purchased a home in The Quarry 9 years ago. We choose Collier County because of its natural beauty and solid economics. I fully comprehend the importance of growth and development to sustain a thriving community. However,the proposed aggressive development will have the opposite effect. Future"land use planning"must consider the function of existing infrastructure. If not, our lifestyle will be compromised and our home values reduced. As our elected County Commissioner, you are responsible for providing services to protect the health, safety,welfare and quality of life of the citizens of Collier County. As these planned developments move forward, I encourage you to keep these responsibilities in the fore-front&treat it as your top priority. I look forward to hearing from you. Linda Weidmaier 9787 Nickel Ridge Circle Naples, FL 34120 i LykinsDave From: Darrell and Cheryl Hay <drygrass926@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:07 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: District#3 Town Hall Meeting My wife and I recently attended the Town Hall meeting for District 3 held on May 22, 2017 re: Addie's Corner at Immokalee Road and #951. With the acknowledgement that Immokalee Road will fail in the near future we were distressed to learn that there are no plans to avoid this catastrophe. In fact plans are such that they will accelerate this mess. It seems that the only reasonable short term decision is to establish and implement a building moratorium. We pray that you and the planning board have the courage to act responsibly. Darrell and Cheryl Hay, Quarry residents. 1 LykinsDave From: Jane Rollins <naplesjanel @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday,June 13, 2017 11:15 AM To: JohnsonEric Cc: SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue; StrainMark; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph Subject: Re: Collier County Planning Commission Project# 20150001776. Dear Mr. Johnson: I have been looking over the many changes for this property (Barron Collier's Addison Place) over many years. One of the revisions, I believe on 7/9/10, was dramatic. If I'm reading the document "Addie's Corner Exhibit C CPUD Master Plan" correctly, prior to this date, Barron Collier had not planned residential units for this parcel. If I followed the documents correctly, Addison Place was a 726 acre parcel and Addie's Corner was just a small (23.3 acre) portion to be developed for commercial uses at the corner of Immokalee Rd and the extension of 951 north. Can you direct me to view a map of the entire 726 acre parcel? There has been so much information going around about assisted living facilities and more commercial uses to be built in front of the Quarry as well as a large commercial project at the SE corner of Immokalee Rd and 951 that will generate a tremendous amount of traffic. We need to know all of the impact these developments will have on this intersection before the June 27th Collier County Commissioners Meeting. As stated in our May 8th email to you, our major concerns are traffic and safety, sights and sounds and the impact on our property value with all of these building plans. If this plan is approved, why would the county want to create so much congestion? What plans are there for road improvements and traffic flow if all these projects get the green light. You, the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners have the chance to plan responsibly. Please reconsider these changes requested. Sincerely Yours, Jane & Mike Rollins On May 8, 2017, at 9:26 AM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote: Thank you for your email. I will include it in the packets that will be reviewed by the decision- makers. Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner From:Jane Rollins [mailto:naplesjanel@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 9:02 AM To: StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; EbertDiane <DianeEbert@colliergov.net>; ChrzanowskiStan <StanChrzanowski@colliergov.net>; SchmittJoseph <JosephSchmitt@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; BrownleeMichael<MichaelBrownlee@colliergov.net>; GoodnerAngela <AngelaGoodner@colliergov.net>; LykinsDave <DaveLykins@colliergov.net>; GrecoSherry <SherrvGreco@colliergov.net>; FilsonSue<SueFilson@colliergov.net>;Johnson Eric <EricJohnson@ycolliergov.net> Subject: Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776. May 8,2017 Eric Johnson,Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Collier County Planning Commissioners Diane Ebert, Stan Chrzanowski,Joseph Scmitt,Mark Strain Collier County Commissioners Burt Saunders,Donna Fiala,Penny Taylor,Bill McDaniel,Andy Solis, cc: Dave Lykins,Michael Brownlee, Angela Goodner, Sherry Greco, Sue Filson Re:Addie's Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776. We are homeowners who live in in Esplanade Golf&Country Club full time and registered voters in Collier County. We have several primary concerns about our home investment as it will be impacted by the Addie's Corner Development: 1. Safety and Traffic.We are a gated community. We are requesting that the density be lowered considerably below the proposed plan. 349 living units plus a possible group house would have a sizable impact for all of us currently living off Immokalee Rd.if we needed to evacuate in the event of a hurricane. We have no north bound route until I-75, about 4.5 miles from Collier Blvd. We have only one paved entrance and exit from our neighborhood and it is Immokalee Rd. To leave,we have to share the turn out with cars making U turns in the same space as us.People don't realize who has right of way and this makes for a dangerous situation.The impact of adding as many as 349 living units, a group home and an unknown number of businesses to the traffic flow west of the Collier Blvd traffic light so close to our exit from Esplanade will make this dangerous situation even worse. We would like to see a traffic light installed at our entrance. We would like to see Barron Collier keep this project on hold until Collier Blvd is widened and operational and require them to direct most of its traffic out the Collier Blvd. side. 2. Sight and Sound. We would request the developer put an opaque wall around their property. To reduce the impact of this development,Barron Collier should not be allowed to reduce the acreage devoted to preserve by 61% (8.85 acres to 3.45)as they have requested,rather keep it as originally stated. We request the buffer areas be enlarged and exotic trees replaced with trees of similar size. We request that outdoor lighting be pointed away from our neighborhood and facing downward. We request living units be no more than 2 stories in height. We request no business or living unit amenity have outside amplified noise(there is a water management area at the north end of the property and water does amplify noise). 3. April 28,2017 Amendment To The Master Plan.The revision calls for even more housing than the original plan. It asked for a group home in Tract A with only a slight reduction in commercial space in addition to the requested 349 living units in Tract C. This is a large change from the September 2015 Master Plan done by Grady Minor Engineers. Respectfully,please do not grant these changes. We would like to attend the Planning Commission Meeting but unfortunately we will be out of the country on May 18th. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 2 Michael &Jane Rollins 9368 Terresina Dr.,Naples, FL 34119 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 8854 Vaccaro Ct Naples, FL 34119 (239) 963- 5365 ejsone@aol.com May 10, 2017 Burt L. Saunders Board of County Commissioners Collier County Government Center 3299 East Tamiami Trail,Suite 303 Naples Florida 34112 Dear Mr. Saunders: This will address the proposed rezoning and development of the property known as "Addie's Corner", which abuts the southeast corner of Esplanade Golf and Country Club. We have watched Esplanade grow into one of the premier bundled golf communities in all of southwest Florida and are among its earliest members. I would encourage you to visit Esplanade to see for yourself how it is developing into a community Collier County can be proud of and point to as an example of thoughtful planning. More than half of its 1700+ acres are set aside and dedicated as lakes and preserves. The intersection of 951 and Immokalee Rd, and the areas within proximity to it as it develops further, could become a density and traffic nightmare if intelligent planning is not the first priority. I'm sure I don't have to tell you it would be short-sighted not to consider what the future holds for the southeast corner of the intersection (Pelican Nursey) as well as the existing development on the southwest corner (i.e. how difficult it is to exit the Pebblebrooke Shopping Center if your intent is to go east or west). The increased amount of traffic due to another right turn only access point onto Immokalee between 951 and the Esplanade entrance is of great concern. As it exists now, pulling out of the community can be challenging because of the high volume of traffic going east on Immokalee and the number of cars making a U-turn opposite our entryway. The point is that every effort should be made to minimize the impact of Addie's Corner on the entire area as it is now and will be in the future. And, yes,that includes its impact on Esplanade. For example, given all the preserve restrictions placed on the developer of Esplanade, why would you ever consider reducing the preserve acreage requirement of the developer of the property adjacent to it? Landscaping, buffers, height, light and noise are all related to the density issue. We recently had occasion to begin at the corner of 951 and Immokalee and drive a distance of 3 miles in every direction. There are no four-story buildings, commercial or residential, visible from either road. And, frankly, there are very few three-story buildings. We ask that you give the proposed development your most thoughtful consideration. Do not reduce the preserve acreage, require substantial buffers, limit building height to two-stories, substantially reduce the number of units, provide for light and sound restrictions and, most importantly, act as prudent stewards of the beauty that is Collier County and its sensible development. Sincerely, a„„fe Edmund J. Staley, Esq. Carol A. Staley ,j24tAct, Get/"Peli� ,5411-(2 i iZ / 4 n-1 0 • cri Z CD - ---' ----- , .:., p•s• C-'\ i 1.0 C:\.. ......\_, ti) — _....i., ._ .-% ..,f...., - ____... ..i,_ 1. = ("--- (Vs) ,. . c• W, =..• 2.,' 4 , ; ......... „....4ci ..7.... _—.) ..., \) 6 t -2.• U ............... =.. r'' . • ... o :-...... ---, . K Vt -=: itti rl /V/ 1 1 ( g Commissioner Saunders Town Hall Meeting 5-22-17 1. Robert Zingali, RJZ1019@aol.com, 239.207.7446 2. Pat Vaia, patvaiachwg9@comcast.net, 724.244.9128 3. Carol Baribeau, cbaribe@msn.com, 724.244.9128 4. Karl Fry, karlfry@comcast.net, 239.777.3962 5. Clement Soffer, csoffer@soffergrove.com 6. Carol Barkauskas, naplescarol@yahoo.com, 239.572.0187 7. Greg Barkauskas, naplescarol@yahoo.com, 239.572.0187 8. George Kupel,gwkupel@vahoo.com 9. Marianne Kupel,gwkupel@yahoo.com 10. Bujar Lame, butchkorea@yahoo.com, 239.826.8183 11. William Kinsley, 775.5224 12. Jim Glase,glasegolf@earthlink.net, 239.598.9374 13. Loretta DeMarco, dlemarcoF3@comcast.net, 239.253.4369 14. Mario Rodriguez, Mario-rodriguez1983@yahoo.com, 239.302.0772 15. Dan Sullivan, dan@greenlinksnaples.org, 239.682.5976 16. Greg Heber, 239.304.3240 17. Lisa Heber, 239.304.3240 18. Stacey McCurdy, Stacey.mccurdy@gmail.com, 239.304.5458 19. Tim Jerzyk,tpierz53@gmail.com, 502.645.2080 20. Megan Jerzyk,tpjerz53@gmail.com, 502.645.2080 21. Les Wicker, leswicker@aol.com, 239.514.3500 22. Roy Fairweather, 564 95th Ave. N. 23. Rob Nossen,thenossens@aol.com, 239.591.3956 24. Jim Parish, japarish@comcast.net, 239.641.3854 25. Judy Bromley,914bromley@gmail.com 26. Darrell Hay, drygress956@yahoo.com, 920.251.0621 27. Cheryl Hay, drygress956@yahoo.com, 920.251.0621 28. Beth Brainard, bethbrainard@naplespathways.org, 781.424.2413 29. Noreen Linane, noreenlinane@gmail.com 30. Frank Tatro,tatrofe@gmail.com 31. Dale Wohlers, pdwohl6@gmail.com, 239.566.2981 32. Peggy Wohlers, pdwohl6@gmail.com, 239.566.2981 33. Theresa lamurri,tiamurri@comcast.net, 239.591.4403 34. Jack Arcurie,Arcurie@aol.com, 239.353.1368 35. Gary Bromley, bromley914@centurylink.net, 239.348.1179 36. Carlos Huerta, Carloshuerta16@yahoo.com 37. Dawn Huerta, Carloshuerta16@yahoo.com 38. Tony Palladino, tony@palladinocustomhomes.com 39. Gerald Feeley,gpfmf@comcast.net, 239.530.1325 40. Katie Sullivan, katie.sullivan512@gmail.com, 239.595.3194 41. John Nicola, jnicola23@yahoo.com, 239.229.9541 42. Bob Walker, bjwalkers@comcast.net, 239.825.5781 43. Gary Surace,garyrn@yahoo.com 44. Faye Sutton, fcsutton@louisville.edu, 239.405.5199 1 Commissioner Saunders Town Hall Meeting 5-22-17 45. Bob Sutton, fcsutton@louisville.edu, 239.405.5199 46. Diane Ebert, jodiebert@regan.com, 239.593.1103 47. Cheryl 011ila,cherylollila@hotmail.com, 248.904.7890 48. Henry Bachman, h.bachman@iece.org, 239.325.9234 49. Steven Bracci,steve@braccilaw.com, 239.596.2635 50. Jim Stark, jrstark@netscape.com, 816.260.1943 51. Diane Zingali, dzingali@iohnrwood.com, 239.207.7454 52. Michael Toorock, pamwrighttoorock@gmail.com, 201.314.6353 53. Pam Toorock, pamwighttoorock@gmail.com, 201.314.6353 54. David Weinberger, hedylw@aol.com, 239.593.0402 55. Hedy Weinberger, hedylw@aol.com, 239.593.0402 56. Kristi Bartlett, kristi@napleschamber.org 57. Sandy Fleming,akmbmom1@yahoo.com, 239.269.1936 58. Theresa Puglise, bretzgirls@aol.com, 239.877.1336 59. Wallace Lucas, royalstars98@yahoo.com 60. Jacqueline Lucas, royalstars98@yahoo.com 61. Harlean Norris,clnoofl@aol.com, 239.304.0771 62. Ed Hubbard, hubbsbuflo@hotmail.com, 239.793.5468 63. Sheila Solomon, jerrymsolomon@gmail.com, 410.207.3340 64. Jerry Solomon, jerrymsolomon@gmail.com, 410.207.3340 65. Steve Abrams, steveabrams53@gmail.com 66. Robert Genovese, cmcgeno@centurylink.net, 239.774.7044 67. Richard Rogan, rmrogan40@gmail.com, 239.530.1379 68. Beverly Smith, bevsmith116@gmail.com, 201.396.7197 69. Terrie Abrams,terrie.abrams@gmail.com, 630.244.4800 70. Richard Smith, richsmith457@gmail.com, 201.396.7625 71. Susan King, slk1151@aol.com 72. Nancy Ferrare, nfer348272@yahoo.com, 234.455.3983 73. Bruce LaPierre, planner46@ycomcast.net 74. Glen Bruins,gabruins@yahoo.com, 239.304.0120 75. Arlene Bruins,gabruins@yahoo.com, 239.304.0120 76. Pete Lombardi, ple11988@yahoo.com, 239.417.2555 77. Patrick Dolbad, 239.417.2555,gm@nhgcc.com 78. Garrett Beyrent, 239.298.2070 79. Debbie Walters, ecw34119@gmail.com 80. Ed Walters, ecw34119@gmail.com 81. Dorothy LePore, Dorothy.lepore@yahoo.com 82. Matthew Renner, mattr@golfheritagebay.com, 239.384.6165 83. Gayle Hahe,gayle@nnbc.life, 239.597.2201 84. Edmund Staley, ejsone@aol.com, 239.963.5365 85. Carol Staley, ejsone@aol.com, 239.963.5365 Majority(90%+spoke in opposition to any additional development on Immokalee Rd/CR 951 intersection/corridor, including Addie's Corner,Tree Nursery, etc.) 2 LykinsDave From: Michele.Bajek@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 9:01 AM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Fwd: GL Homes-Proposed Plaza called Naples Garden Shops (immokalee/Logan Blv) Dear Mr Saunders: I had forwarded a concern below to a previous commission. I feel there is a need for a pedestrian bridge on Immokalee Rd anywhere between Logan& Collier Blvd. In addition to concerns of students crossing, we have a great bicycle path/walking path residents could safely access (reducing vehicle traffic) if there was a safer way to cross immokalee road. Thank you in advance for your time. Michele Bajek Saturnia Lakes Resident Begin forwarded message: From: Michele.Bajek@aol.com Date: November 7, 2016 at 1:03:04 PM EST To: TomHenning@colliergov.net Subject: GL Homes-Proposed Plaza called Naples Garden Shops (immokalee/Logan Blv) Mr. Henning: I attended a community meeting held by GL Homes at Saturnia Lakes for their proposed Plaza at Immokalee Rd& Logan Blvd. I liked the proposed plan. However, I asked GL Homes if they planned any pedestrian bridge for this shopping center with two schools nearby and students walking, riding bikes and was told there was not one! I strongly urge either the county, GL Homes or both work together consider this with the potential of increased pedestrian traffic. I have attached below an example of a pedestrian bridge. Thank You Michele Bajek i * *coo Sprint 10 : 32 AM conteches.con 71'irastfT ir ENGINEERED SOLUTIO LykinsDave From: Dale Dear- 3257 <Dale.Dear@colliersheriff.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 11:26 AM To: Jim Busby Cc: Ilfgm@longshorelake.org; SaundersBurt;jim.monson@outlook.com Subject: Re: Intersection of Immokalee and Valewood Jim, First of all thank you for writing in. As you know we have been stretched thin during season and as you elude to below "season" is over. What you may not know are the efforts we take daily to make sure our community is safe. I have noted your concern of the Valewood intersection and can assure you and the members of the board that your intersection is just one of many dangerous intersections in the county we have the daunting task of making safe. We have kept the Valewood and Tarpon Bay intersections in our sights for some time now and now that we have more time to divide our resources you can be assured you will be seeing more of us. With respect to the excuses you mentioned we not longer have of not providing more resources I say please understand our frustration. I can show you many emails of the same nature of intersections through the county where dangerously operated dump trucks, speeders, and red light runners plague our streets. We run our deputies ragged covering as many priority complaints as humanly possible. I have personally conducted details at this intersection and understand fully that it is an issue. In closing I ask that you keep patient, but keep your eyes peeled as we are going to light up Immokalee Rd like a landing strip very soon Kind Regards, Sgt Dear Sent from my iPhone On May 9, 2017, at 10:39 AM,Jim Busby<nicaboynecorp@aol.com<mailto:nicaboynecorp@aol.com»wrote: Dear Mr. Saunders, and Sgt Dear, I am writing both of you not just for myself, but on the behalf of many neighbors in the Longshore Lake Community. Sgt Dear may/may not already be aware of me as I have contacted the Sheriff's office on multiple occasions over the past 4 months begging for more officer presence at the intersection of Immokalee and Valewood. As a tennis instructor who travels around various Naples communities,this intersection, is hands-down the most dangerous one in Collier County, and getting worse every day. I have been told by the Collier Sheriff that resources are stretched thin due to season, and assistance is limited. We as a community understand that, and appreciate what is done county-wide by our officers. But this problem at this intersection is especially dangerous. As one of the last lights before the expressway, it is regularly blocked with cars who do not respect the law requiring the intersection to remain clear.This can cause residents from Longshore, Quail West, Quail Creek, etc.,to have to wait extra lights just to make a simple right turn. As a result, impatience grows, and risks are taken. Cars are running red lights in ALL directions. Especially from the east-west traffic on Immokalee.Traffic heading West has grown due to all the development, and again, with the interstate in sight, running a red light to get to the 1 expressway has become common on nearly ever light change. Even more disturbing is the constant running of the lights from the dump trucks carrying 60,000 lbs of gravel. When one of them hit one our neighbors, serious injury or death will be a certainty. Gentlemen, season is over.The excuses about not being able to provide more presence are less, however the danger remains the same, and the police presence remains nearly non existent. Despite my requests, I have only seen one posting at that intersection -on a Sunday morning of all times-the lightest inconsequential traffic day of all. During weekdays, our children commute to/from school through that intersection every day. Every one of us living in these subdivisions are going through this high-risk intersection every day. So what can be done?The board in Longshore has requested that a DO NOT BLOCK intersection be painted on the road. Nice idea, but when someone is sitting right on top of it, and not worried about ever seeing an officer making an example of anyone, it will blend in with the scenery. After all,there is a sign that says the same thing already. What about red light cameras, if physical enforcement is limited? Naples already has cameras mounted on nearly every light pole,watching intersections.To what benefit currently?The dump truck drivers get paid by the load, and if running red lights makes them more money than what they lose from citations or threats of CDL license revoking then the lawlessness will continue to be more profitable. As stated before, I have personally made nearly a dozen calls to the sheriff imploring more be done there. Mr. Saunders and Sgt Dear, we in this community are putting you both on written notice of the situation, and that something must be done.The dangers of this intersection can no longer fall on deaf ears through phone calls. Our safety and our children's safety needs to be made a higher priority. I have included board members from our community in this email, and look forward to you engaging us in a solution that will protect us. Sincerely, Jim Busby 11488 Mallard Ct Naples, FL 34119 847-845-3847 This communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action induced by or in reliance on information contained in this message. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of the Collier County Sheriff's Office. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Collier County Sheriff's Office by emailing helpdesk@colliersheriff.org quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. the Collier County Sheriff's Office accepts no liability or responsibility for any onward transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the colliersheriff domain. 2 LykinsDave From: Jim Busby <nicaboynecorp@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 11:42 AM To: Dale Dear Cc: Ilfgm@longshorelake.org; SaundersBurt;jim.monson@outlook.com Subject: Re: Intersection of Immokalee and Valewood Sgt Dear, thank you for the prompt reply, and we really look forward to seeing the spike in Collier revenue due to all the citations issued!!! Please forgive us if we honk and cheer as we pass by the officers. Clearly the year round residents are the biggest offenders, the tourists just have no idea where they are going. I hope Mr. Saunders will be able to reply and provide more assistance to our mutual goal. I know that things such as red light cameras can be controversial, but I have lived in areas where I personally disliked them, but concede they were very helpful. While not a moving violation, the cost of a red light ticket usually is around $100. Enough to stop a dangerous habit quickly. Season will be upon us again it seems by next week, and as things get stretched again, a permanent solution provided by the Commissioner is the ideal conclusion. Sincerely, Jim Busby Owner/President Nicaboyne.com 866-442-9100 Original Message . From: Dale Dear- 3257 <Dale.Dear@colliersheriff.org> To: Jim Busby <nicaboynecorp@aol.com> Cc: Ilfgm <llfgm@longshorelake.org>; burtsaunders <burtsaunders@colliergov.net>;jim.monson <jim.monson@outlook.com> Sent: Tue, May 9, 2017 11:26 am Subject: Re: Intersection of Immokalee and Valewood Jim, First of all thank you for writing in. As you know we have been stretched thin during season and as you elude to below "season" is over. What you may not know are the efforts we take daily to make sure our community is safe. I have noted your concern of the Valewood intersection and can assure you and the members of the board that your intersection is just one of many dangerous intersections in the county we have the daunting task of making safe. We have kept the Valewood and Tarpon Bay intersections in our sights for some time now and now that we have more time to divide our resources you can be assured you will be seeing more of us. With respect to the excuses you mentioned we not longer have of not providing more resources I say please understand our frustration. I can show you many emails of the same nature of intersections through the county where dangerously operated dump trucks, speeders, and red light runners plague our streets. We run our deputies ragged covering as many - priority complaints as humanly possible. I have personally conducted details at this.intersection and understand fully that it is an issue. In closing I ask that you keep patient, but keep your eyes peeled as we are going to light up Immokalee Rd like a landing strip very soon Kind Regards, Sgt Dear 1 Sent from my iPhone On May 9, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Jim Busby <nicaboynecorptc�i aol.com<mailto:nicaboynecorp(a�aol.com» wrote: Dear Mr. Saunders, and Sgt Dear, I am writing both of you not just for myself, but on the behalf of many neighbors in the Longshore Lake Community. Sgt Dear may/may not already be aware of me as I have contacted the Sheriffs office on multiple occasions over the past 4 months begging for more officer presence at the intersection of Immokalee and Valewood. As a tennis instructor who travels around various Naples communities, this intersection, is hands-down the most dangerous one in Collier County, and getting worse every day. I have been told by the Collier Sheriff that resources are stretched thin due to season, and assistance is limited. We as a community understand that, and appreciate what is done county-wide by our officers. But this problem at this intersection is especially dangerous. As one of the last lights before the expressway, it is regularly blocked with cars who do not respect the law requiring the intersection to remain clear. This can cause residents from Longshore, Quail West, Quail Creek, etc., to have to wait extra lights just to make a simple right turn. As a result, impatience grows, and risks are taken. Cars are running red lights in ALL directions. Especially from the east-west traffic on Immokalee. Traffic heading West has grown due to all the development, and again, with the interstate in sight, running a red light to get to the expressway has become common on nearly ever light change. Even more disturbing is the constant running of the lights from the dump trucks carrying 60,000 lbs of gravel. When one of them hit one our neighbors, serious injury or death will be a certainty. Gentlemen, season is over. The excuses about not being able to provide more presence are less, however the danger remains the same, and the police presence remains nearly non existent. Despite my requests, I have only seen one posting at that intersection -on a Sunday morning of all times-the lightest inconsequential traffic day of all. During weekdays, our children commute to/from school through that intersection every day. Every one of us living in these subdivisions are going through this high-risk intersection every day. So what can be done? The board in Longshore has requested that a DO NOT BLOCK intersection be painted on the road. Nice idea, but when someone is sitting right on top of it, and not worried about ever seeing an officer making an example of anyone, it will blend in with the scenery. After all, there is a sign that says the same thing already. What about red light cameras, if physical enforcement is limited? Naples already has cameras mounted on nearly every light pole, watching intersections. To what benefit currently? The dump truck drivers get paid by the load, and if running red lights makes them more money than what they lose from citations or threats of CDL license revoking then the lawlessness will continue to be more profitable. As stated before, I have personally made nearly a dozen calls to the sheriff imploring more be done there. Mr. Saunders and Sgt Dear, we in this community are putting you both on written notice of the situation, and that something must be done. The dangers of this intersection can no longer fall on deaf ears through phone calls. Our safety and our children's safety needs to be made a higher priority. I have included board members from our community in this email, and look forward to you engaging us in a solution that will protect us. Sincerely, Jim Busby 11488 Mallard Ct Naples, FL 34119 847-845-3847 This communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action induced by or in reliance on information contained in this message. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of the Collier County Sheriffs Office. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Collier County Sheriffs Office by emailing helpdesk@colliersheriff.org quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. the Collier County 2 Sheriffs Office accepts no liability or responsibility for any onward transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the colliersheriff domain. 3 LykinsDave From: Jim Busby <nicaboynecorp@aol.com> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 11:18 AM To: Ilfgm@longshorelake.org; SaundersBurt; 3257@colliersheriff.org; jim.monson@outlook.com Subject: Re: Intersection of Immokalee and Valewood Mr. Saunders, Sgt Dear was quite prompt and proactive with his reply, and we are grateful and hope that progress happens. But we have not heard from you. What is the standard reply time and acknowledgement for an elected official? Your input and help is needed for a long term solution. Sincerely, Jim Busby Original Message From: Jim Busby <nicaboynecorp@aol.com> To: Ilfgm <Ilfgm@longshorelake.org>; burtsaunders <burtsaunders@colliergov.net>; 3257 <3257@colliersheriff.org>; jim.monson <jim.monson@outlook.com> Sent: Tue, May 9, 2017 10:39 am Subject: Intersection of Immokalee and Valewood Dear Mr. Saunders, and Sgt Dear, I am writing both of you not just for myself, but on the behalf of many neighbors in the Longshore Lake Community. Sgt Dear may/may not already be aware of me as I have contacted the Sheriffs office on multiple occasions over the past 4 months begging for more officer presence at the intersection of Immokalee and Valewood. As a tennis instructor who travels around various Naples communities, this intersection, is hands-down the most dangerous one in Collier County, and getting worse every day. I have been told by the Collier Sheriff that resources are stretched thin due to season, and assistance is limited. We as a community understand that, and appreciate what is done county-wide by our officers. But this problem at this intersection is especially dangerous. As one of the last lights before the expressway, it is regularly blocked with cars who do not respect the law requiring the intersection to remain clear. This can cause residents from Longshore, Quail West, Quail Creek, etc., to have to wait extra lights just to make a simple right turn. As a result, impatience grows, and risks are taken. Cars are running red lights in ALL directions. Especially from the east-west traffic on Immokalee. Traffic heading West has grown due to all the development, and again, with the interstate in sight, running a red light to get to the expressway has become common on nearly ever light change. Even more disturbing is the constant running of the lights from the dump trucks carrying 60,000 lbs of gravel. When one of them hit one our neighbors, serious injury or death will be a certainty. Gentlemen, season is over. The excuses about not being able to provide more presence are less, however the danger remains the same, and the police presence remains nearly non existent. Despite my requests, I have only seen one posting at that intersection -on a Sunday morning of all times-the lightest inconsequential traffic day of all. During weekdays, our children commute to/from school through that intersection every day. Every one of us living in these subdivisions are going through this high-risk intersection every day. So what can be done? The board in Longshore has requested that a DO NOT BLOCK intersection be painted on the road. Nice idea, but when someone is sitting right on top of it, and not worried about ever seeing an officer making an example of anyone, it will blend in with the scenery. After all, there is a sign that says the same thing already. What about red light cameras, if physical enforcement is limited? Naples already has cameras mounted on nearly every light pole, watching intersections. To what benefit currently? The dump truck drivers get paid by the load, and if running red lights makes them more money than what they lose from citations or threats of CDL license revoking then the lawlessness will continue to be more profitable. As stated before, I have personally made nearly a dozen calls to the sheriff imploring more be done there. Mr. Saunders and Sgt Dear, we in this community are putting you both on written notice of the situation, and that something must be done. The dangers of this intersection can no longer fall on deaf ears through phone calls. Our safety and our children's safety needs to be made a higher priority. I have included board members from our community in this email, and look forward to you engaging us in a solution that will protect us. Sincerely, Jim Busby 11488 Mallard Ct Naples, FL 34119 847-845-3847 2 LykinsDave From: Jane DeTullio <jdetulli@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:36 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Development along Immokalee Commissioner Saunders, I would like to weigh in on the proposed development of Immokalee Road. As a resident of The Quarry, I have seen traffic increase considerably just over the past three years to the point that I plan my routes carefully, exiting off of Immokalee as quickly as possible to minimize delays. I shudder at the real possibility that it could get exponentially worse if the developments that are under consideration are approved. Apparently I am not alone. The Transportation Engineers have analyzed the expected traffic loads resulting from the proposed developments and have concluded that the traffic design on Immokalee will fail by 2021. 2021 is around the corner, and yet there doesn't appear to be a plan to stave off the expected traffic burden. How can this be? We look to representatives such as yourself to have the best interests of Collier County residents foremost in their minds, to show leadership in complex matters that may affect multiple constituencies, and to demonstrate long-term thinking through policies drafted and decisions made. Development is warranted only when it is sensibly planned for and proven to be a need. As far as I can discern,there is little planning, and resales of homes and condos in Naples are down due to the surfeit of new construction. The beneficiaries of these actions would appear to be developers, not residents. If there is another way to view your decisions, I am open to it; however, as the facts stand, my conclusion appears to be substantiated. Give me some reasons to think otherwise. Respectfully, Jane DeTullio Writer. Editor.Tutor jane@jdwordsmith.corn www jdwordsmith.corn 732.598.7724 1 LykinsDave From: christine Shanahan <courtreporter90@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 3:44 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Planned Development I support fully the position of the Quarry Board of Directors. Furthermore, I'm appalled at the continued approvals issuing forth from officials who obviously have a complete disregard for the consequences of their actions to the residents in this area. Whatever your motivation, it's not good enough to degrade the property values already existing by building beyond the capacity of the roads and infrastructure to support it. Christine E. Shanahan LykinsDave From: gheben@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 9:34 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Re: No U-Turn at Immokalee Rd &951 Commissioner Saunders & Mr. Lykins, Thank you for giving us the U-Turn back! And thank you for listening to our concerns! Sincerely, Greg Heben From: "SaundersBurt" <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net> To: gheben@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 2:35:11 PM Subject: No U-Turn at Immokalee Rd & 951 Mr. Heben, On behalf of Commissioner Saunders, thank you for taking the time to attend the Town Hall meeting Monday night. As you observed during the meeting, the issue you described in your email was shared directly with Commissioner Saunders, Growth Management and County Transportation staff that were in attendance by several residents with similar concerns. The issue is clearly understood and it is anticipated the Transportation Division will be reviewing the situation to determine what remedies, short term and long term that may be available. Thank you for taking time to follow up from the meeting with an email and share your thoughts. We look forward to seeing you at similar meetings in the future. Regards... Dave Lykins Executive Coord. to District 3 Commissioner Burt Saunders davelykins©colliergov.net 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite#303 Naples, FL 34112 P: (239 252-8603 Co er Coity 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:gheben@comcast.net [mailto:gheben@comcast.net] Sent:Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:57 PM To: SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net> Subject: No U-Turn at Immokalee Rd &951 Commissioner Saunders, 1 Thank you for having the Town Hall Meeting last night. I did not speak at the event, however I would also like to voice my concern regarding the intersection of Immokalee Rd and 951. Specifically the U-Turn which allows one to travel East on Immokalee Rd, make the U-Turn, then travel West on Immokalee. Or should I say "the former U-Turn". It is nonsensical that this U- Turn has been taken away. I live in Pebblebrooke Lakes and my family and I use the Immokalee Rd entrance/exit getting in and out of our community. Taking away the U-Turn has made trying to travel West on Immokalee Rd not only burdensome and inconvenient, but also more dangerous. I see no explicable reason as to why the U-Turn has been taken away. There is a cement barrier on the North side of Immokalee Rd that protects the construction workers @ Addies Corner. This barrier has been there for a long time. Nothing has changed. But now all of a sudden no U-Turn. There is no risk to worker safety by having a U-Turn there. Absolutely none. So instead of being able to make the U-Turn in the morning, we had to go East on Immokalee Rd well past 951. Unfortunately we ( my wife and I both work West of 1-75 and my son drives to Gulf Coast High School) cannot make U-Turns at the first two areas that allow U-Turns because the volume of traffic traveling West on Immokalee Rd will not allow one to do so in a safe manner. These U-Turns do not have traffic signals. Cars are traveling at high rates of speed and are bumper to bumper traveling West on Immokalee Rd East of 951 as I'm sure you know. We would literally have to go out a couple of miles and it was still difficult to make a safe U-Turn. And if we did make the U-Turn safely, we've already spent an extra 10 minutes. So then we tried turning South onto 951 and then make a U-Turn in front of Publix at Pebblebrooke Shoppes.. This too is risky. Although the North flowing traffic on 951 is not as bad as the West flowing traffic on Immokalee Rd, the width of the lanes to make the U-Turn are narrower and negotiating the turn is more difficult . One has to make the turn slower, thus exposing oneself to oncoming traffic for a longer period of time. And again, 10 more minutes added to the commute for no apparent reason in my mind. But an unintended consequence has evolved out of this misguided decision to eliminate the U-Turn at Immokalee Rd and 951. People are driving out of Pebblebrooke, illegally crossing the Eastbound Immokalee Rd lanes and going into an oncoming turn lane and then making a 90 degree left hand turn onto Westbound Immokalee Rd. Very dangerous. Not only dangerous to them but also to the Westbound drivers who are not expecting cars to appear in front of them. I haven't even mentioned the fact that the CCSO is now giving drivers tickets for making the U- Turn @ Immokalee and 951. Just pouring salt into the wound. So in closing, I hope you will look into this issue. On the surface, one would think that eliminating a U-Turn at an intersection would not have much of an affect on one's quality of life. But this elimination really has. And there doesn't seem to be a good reason why it was done so. Thank you for your time and thanks for making the County Commission sane again. Sincerely, Greg Heben ghebenCa�comcast.net 2 LykinsDave From: Beth Summer <bethsummer73@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 10:48 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Immokalee Rd Traffic and Future Development Hello Mr Saunders...We live at The Quarry community, 9184 Ores Circle. It has been a wonderful place to live until recently. It has become a nightmare driving on Immokalee and from what we have read, it will become worse. It is my understanding that in 3 years the traffic will have failed due to poor planning for all the future developments about to happen. What happens if there is an evacuation for a hurricane?The planning for future traffic obviously has not been properly vetted. I urge you to put a moratorium on all developments until a transportation plan for future heavy traffic can be put into place to handle the nightmarish traffic that all of us, as residents, are enduring right now.This needs to be addressed before it is too late. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Mark and Elisabeth Summer bethsummer73@gmail.com 1 LykinsDave From: Denise.Dennie@sanofi.com Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:09 AM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Congestion on Immokalee with future buildings Dear sir I was shocked to hear that additional build out is planned on Immokalee near my residence in The Quarry. As you know, there is already significant congestion and with the additional homes and shops being planned,the roads will certainly fail to hold the amount of cars that will be driven in the near future. I urge you to please stop the planned additions so that we may maintain some semblance of a peaceful life in Naples. Thank you for your support Denise and Keith Dennie 9060 Siesta Bay Drive, Naples, FL 1 LykinsDave From: Dr Thomas <drthomas510@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 10:11 AM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Re: Commissioner Saunders, hopefully you and all Commissioners will have the courage to do the right thing NOW and not later! Thank you for your service. Thank you for having your administrator get back to me.This is a serious problem that needs addressed now. Planning has failed, maybe some members need replaced. What's done is done,you must exert the power of your office to address the problem. I know that what has been approved has to go through as law suits would follow but you need people working for you who don't just like to hear themselves talking. The ground swell is starting Regards, Dr. David Thomas Remember, God Bless America!! >On May 30, 2017, at 9:35 AM, SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>wrote: > Dr.Thomas, >On behalf of Commissioner Saunders, thank you for taking the time to prepare an email and share your thoughts. For the record, your observations and concerns are noted. The issue you have stated will be shared with the Transportation Division in Growth Management for consideration. > Dave Lykins > Executive Coord. to District 3 Commissioner Burt Saunders >davelykins@colliergov.net > 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite#303 > Naples, FL 34112 > P: (239) 252-8603 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. > > Original Message > From: Dr Thomas [mailto:drthomas510@gmail.com] >Sent:Tuesday, May 30, 2017 7:52 AM >To: SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net> >Subject: Commissioner Saunders, hopefully you and all Commissioners will have the courage to do the right thing NOW and not later! Thank you for your service. > > > 2 LykinsDave From: LINDA TOGIAS <lolatogias@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:12 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: OVER DEVELOPMENT! Mr. Saunders, My husband and I live in the Quarry. We are but two people who are extremely concerned about the upcoming development in our immediate area. Roads are horrible now but to consider roughly a thousand more vehicles is unimaginable! Roads need to be improved to say the least!!! We will continue to stay on top of this huge problem along with all our immediate Quarry neighbors as well as surrounding communities! SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE BEFORE NOT AFTER!! Linda and Chuck Togias 1 LykinsDave From: Pete Bartolik <pete@bartolik.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:48 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Development at Immokalee Road and County Road 951 Hello commissioner, I live (year-round) at 9091 Graphite Circle,Naples, in the Quarry community . I was not able to attend the recent meeting on development in District 3, but I am alarmed at the report that i read in the Naples Daily News and from members in this community that attended. I'm not opposed to development, nor am I a "Not in my backyard" objectionist. However, it's become increasingly clear that Immokalee Road is already struggling to handle traffic -particularly during season. To learn that Transportation Engineering Division projects it will "fail" by 2021 left me incredulous. I urge that Naples implement a more manageable process for proceeding with development so that growth does not exceed infrastructure capacity. best regards, Pete Bartolik 508-259-2108 pete@bartolik.com i LykinsDave From: Olga Johnston <olgamjohnston@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:28 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Immokalee Corridor Overdevelopment Dear Commissioner Saunders, I am writing to voice my concern of the Immokalee Road overdevelopment. I join thousands of other residents who call for the end to this overdevelopment until the appropriate road infrastructure is built to accommodate this proposed and future development. I urge you to consider the public reaction to your planned development- as an elected public servant, it is your duty not only to do so but to ensure that planned developments serve the interests of the public, ensuring our health, safety and welfare. I look forward to hearing how you plan to serve our community in this matter such that our interests our protected. Olga Johnston 9047 Breakwater Drive Naples, FL 34120 1 LykinsDave From: Jim Janetz <jjanetz46@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 5:36 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Overdevelopment As a recently elected commissioner representing my district I am asking that you and your fellow commissioners place a moratorium on further development in North Naples. I recently read a study by county traffic engineers which states that Immokalee Road will "fail" by 2021. Yet commissioners continue to grant new permits for development without considering a lack of roads and infrastructure. Please vote to stop further development until a solution to our traffic problems can be developed. Thank you, James R Janetz 6105 Montelena Circle#6104 Naples, 34119 1 LykinsDave From: Deb Mc <debmc4700@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday,June 1, 2017 9:30 AM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Fwd: overdevelopment Forwarded message From: Deb Mc <debmc4700@gmail.com> Date: Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:29 PM Subject: overdevelopment To: BurtSanders@colliergov.net Dear Mr. Saunders, We are residents of Indigo Lakes. We, like all our neighbors, are gravely concerned about the rampant overdevelopment being approved in our immediate area.As an elected official of our county, we implore you to do your part to obtain a moratorium on any future building in the Immokolee/Collier area. As you should already be aware,the traffic on these two roads has already exceeded critical mass. Any future development will obviously exacerbate this mess. Please let us know what you plan to do about this matter. Sincerely yours, Jim and Deborah McCarthy 1 LykinsDave From: Robert Black <rblackmd@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,June 2, 2017 6:44 AM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Immokalee Road Dear Commissioner Saunders, I presently live at 8785 Hideaway Harbor Court in the Quarry Community in Naples, Florida. When the development of the Quarry began approximately 13 years ago,there was minimal road traffic, very little commercial development. and a few small residential communities in the surrounding area. Things have changed dramatically.Now the Quarry is bordered by a very busy Immokalee Road, with heavy traffic 24 hours a day. The noise pollution from road traffic is very evident throughout the southern portion of our development, especially noise traveling directly from Immokalee Road across Boulder Lake into the residential area. I am very concerned with the proposed plans for additional new communities and developments, a new school, more commercial buildings, and the extension of Collier Blvd. (951). Already during peak season the traffic and noise have become unbearable. It is essential that any further development be put on hold until these issues have been addressed. Immokalee Road needs to have many more lanes in each direction, along with several turning lanes at the intersection with Collier Blvd(951). At the present time, we already often wait for three cycles of light changes before being able to turn left onto Collier Blvd. from Immokalee Rd. With regard to noise pollution, sound barrier walls should be erected between the entrance to the Quarry and the entrance to Heritage Bay. The traffic noise from Immokalee Road, in this particular area,travels directly over Boulder Lake into our residential community at an unbearable level. Commissioner Saunders, please address these issues before proceeding with any further development. I understand that at a recent public hearing for variances of this development, the head of the county Transportation Engineering Division stated that Immokalee Road would not even be able to handle the expected traffic from the proposed development. Hopefully, you understand my anxiety and fear as a resident in this community. I would appreciate a response to acknowledge that my concerns are being taken into consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, Robert Black 1 LykinsDave From: Arnold Angeloni <arnoldangeloni@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 12:39 PM To: SaundersBurt Cc: 'Adam Radler' Subject: Immokalee Road "Failure" in 2021 Attachments: Ltr to Commissioner Saunders about Immokalee Congestion - 05251.pdf Dear Commissioner Saunders, I recently received the attached letter from Cheryl 011ila, President of The Quarry HOA, describing an impending planning failure involving development near the Immokalee/Collier Road intersection that will result in what the Transportation Engineering Division describes as a "failure" for Immokalee Road by the year 2021. As you know, our national politicians and government are held in poor esteem by our citizens and deservedly so for a variety of reasons. However, state and local governments, thankfully, seem to be functioning fairly well. I would think that local governing bodies in Southwest Florida would avoid over-building on a road that the Transportation Engineering Division predicts will fail in 2021. Given these facts, I believe that the moratorium on development on Immokalee Road that Cheryl 011ila proposes makes sense. Regards. Arnold Angeloni 9257 Quarry Drive Naples FL 34120 651 329-4867 1 � C LykinsDave From: Douglas Lewis <Doug@tllfirm.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 6:13 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Bob; Christopher Hagan; GundlachNancy Subject: FW:Triad RPUD (PL#20160002564) & MAC PUD (PL#2016-0002565) Attachments: MAC-Triad area analysis.pdf; MAC RPUD Review Report 06-12-2017.pdf; ERP Pages.pdf; CCF060617_0006.pdf; Submittal 1 05 Hadley Place W PPL Plans - Prepared.pdf; Submittal 2 08 Triad Open Space.pdf; Submittal 1 06 Plat - Prepared (Received).pdf; Submittal 1 06 PlatO - Prepared (Received).pdf; Submittal 2 09 MAC Open Space.pdf Dear Board Members, In advance of the hearing next week, please find the attached and below for your review. I will update you on any progress between the neighbors, staff and the applicant. Best, Douglas A. Lewis T L THOMPSON LEWIS counselors at law 850 Park Shore Drive Suite 201-A Naples, Florida 34103 Direct Dial Phone: (239)316-3004 General Office Phone: (239)316-3006 Facsimile: (239)307-4839 E-Mail: doug@tllfirm.com http://www.martindale.com/Douglas-A-Lewis/1419349-lawyer.htm http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/34108-fl-douglas-lewis-1250057.html Licensed to practice law in Florida, Texas and Washington DC Both Douglas A. Lewis and the Thompson Lewis Law Firm, PLLC intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error.please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A. Lewis immediately at 1(239)316-3006. Thank you. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. From: Douglas Lewis Sent:June 20, 2017 6:03 PM To: 'GundlachNancy' <NancyGundlach@colliergov.net> Cc: 'Bob' <bobcol@comcast.net>; 'Christopher Hagan' <Chris@haganeng.com> Subject: FW:Triad RPUD (PL#20160002564) & MAC PUD (PL#2016-0002565) 1 Nancy, This will confirm that we have not heard back from the applicant regarding our neighborhood concerns raised back on May 31, 2017. In follow-up to the below May 31'submission and in advance of the BCC hearing next week, please find the attached and below for staff and applicant follow-up (hopefully, we can get these items addressed, agreed to by the parties and solved prior to the hearing) 1. Regarding drainage, the existing drainage ditches along the east and west sides of the RUPD's simply do not work (I am having pictures of the drainage problem sent to your office tomorrow). The ditches are not draining properly, and according to my client, the water has not left the ditches since June 6th. In reviewing the ERP and PPL, the East and West drainage systems are connected by pipe under Palm Springs Boulevard. a. My client respectfully requests that Exhibit F to the RPUDs be modified to confirm that both the East and West side drainage ditches will be fully graded and improved by either the County or the applicant, so that they adequately and properly drain (all work to be completed prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project). b. Also, my client respectfully requests that Exhibit F to the RPUDs be modified to require that the projects drain on both the East and West side drainage ditches and that either the County or the applicant commit to install a barrier(prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project)to help keep incursions and encroachments out of the drainage ditches. 2. Additionally regarding drainage and according to Chris Hagan, the proposed land use breakdown only allows approximately 9%of the site for storm water management, and this is well below the typical industry standards of 15% percent for a dense single family cluster project. According to Chris Hagan and based on his review of the ERP, the applicant is making up for its lack of storm water management by draining into the preserve area in the Traid RPUD. a. PUD Hagan's office reviewed the ERP cross sections and noted that the applicant wants to put a retaining wall around the north side of the eastern preserve. Upon closer review of the ERP plans, it appears to Mr. Hagan that the applicant is looking to incorporate that preserve into the water management plan to provide storage for storm water. This is inconsistent with Collier County's rules regarding allowances in preserve areas. This inconsistency would disqualify the area from preserve status for onsite preservation. This would require additional offsite mitigation to compensate for this. b. To eliminate this issue, my client asks that Exhibit F to both RPUDs be modified to expressly prohibit any water discharge into to preserve areas. 3. Additionally regarding drainage, according to Chris Hagan, Palm Springs Blvd. roadside drainage swales are inconsistent at the south end and Palm Springs Blvd. does not comply with County standards. a. My client requests that a stipulation of the approval should be for the County or the applicant commit to bring Palm Springs Blvd. up to current code, prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project, including the addition of improved drainage swales. As an alternative, my client is still open to exploring the possibility of modifying the Master Plan to put all project access (in and out of the proposed project) directly on Radio Lane. 4. The developer proposes inverted crown roadways internally. This is an exception to the LDC and is inconsistent with any existing County owned, operated, and maintained roadways to our knowledge. This design has some inherent challenges that need to be accommodated so that roadway maintenance is improved. a. My client asks the BCC to reject this Exhibit E deviation request consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. 5. Regarding density, the Density Rating System outlined in the FLUE provides that "a base density of 4 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be allowed, though not an entitlement.This base level of density may be adjusted depending upon the location and characteristics of the project." In this case and based on the location and characteristics of the project, the applicant's plat for Hadley Place West is for 42 lots (see attached), not 44 units as per the MAC RPUD and the plat for Hadley Place East is for 41 lots (see attached), not 44 lots per the Triad RPUD. 2 a. In view of the forgoing, why does the MAC RPUD provide for 44 single-family units vs 42 per the PPL and why does the Triad RPUD provide for 44 single-family units vs. 41 per the PPL? 6. Regarding open space, LDC 1.08.00 provides as follow, "Open space, usable: Active or passive recreation areas such as parks, playgrounds, tennis courts,golf courses, beach frontage, waterways, lakes, lagoons, floodplains, nature trails and other similar open spaces. Usable open space areas shall also include those portions of areas set aside for preservation of native vegetation, required yards (setbacks) and landscaped areas, which are accessible to and usable by residents of an individual lot, the development, or the general public. Open water area beyond the perimeter of the site, street rights-of-way, driveways, off-street parking and loading areas, shall not be counted towards required Usable Open Space." a. RWA prepared document titled Triad Open Space and MAC Open Space showing 6.60 acres and 6.64 acres, respectively, of open space. 1. Can the applicant or staff provide supporting detail for the 2.28 acres of"Residential— Open Space" calculations as shown on both the Triad and MAC Open Space documents? b. It appears that most of the "Residential—Open Space" area is coming from required yard (setbacks). Please confirm. As such, I am only calculating 13,200 square feet or .3+/-acres as required yard (setbacks) as follows: 15 ft front yard, 15 ft rear yard and 5 ft for each side yard or 300 square feet times 44 lots= 13,200 square feet. c. The applicant has also filed its PPL. See the attached confirming a compliance problem with the 60% usable open space requirement as required by the Comprehensive Plan. d. Further, the applicant has filed its ERP for the MAC and Traid RPUD's. See the attached from Chris Hagan confirming only 55.2%open space for the MAC and Triad RPUD's based on applicant's ERP applications. e. In view of the clear problems as outlined above, my client requests that the "Site Summary" on the both MAC and Triad RPUD Master Plans should be modified to confirm how the 60% usable open space requirement will be met and to detail the specific "open space" calculations and break- downs. Additionally,the Master Plans for both the MAC and Triad RUPDs should be modified to show the distances between the preserve areas and the lot lines and the distances between the lake, dry detention areas and preserve. 7. The minimum rear yard setbacks for accessory structures in both the MAC and Traid RPUD's is 0 as measured from "lot boundaries", not easements. However,the applicant's plat for Hadley Place West and Hadley Place East show 32 lots+1-that back up to each other and that have 7.5 feet DE off the lot line and into the platted lot. 8. Also, Section N-N (see attached) places a 6 foot swale on the north property line and a 3 foot retaining wall against the existing rear of the existing properties with the preserve behind. A preserve adjoining residential does not need a buffer, but with the swale and wall and detention behind this would make it aesthetically inconsistent with normal perimeter buffering. a. My client requests that the Triad RPUD Master Plan be modified to show heightened and adequate buffering along the north property line in the event of any proposed swale and retaining wall. 9. Consistent with the existing Triad PUD, my client requests that Exhibit F to the RPUDs be modified to require the applicant to seek to obtain permits for all construction access occur off Radio Lane and not involve Palm Springs Boulevard. 10. Finally, see also the attached, follow-up comments from Chris Hagan pertaining to traffic, access and utilities, etc. based on his letter to me dated June 12, 2017. I look forward to speaking with staff and the applicant as soon as possible to address the above items in advance of the hearing next week and will make myself available to meet with the applicant this week. Best, Douglas A. Lewis fi L THOMPSON LEWIS counselors at law 850 Park Shore Drive 3 Suite 201-A Naples, Florida 34103 Direct Dial Phone: (239)316-3004 General Office Phone: (239)316-3006 Facsimile: (239)307-4839 E-Mail: doug@tllfirm.com http://www.martindale.com/Douglas-A-Lewis/1419349-lawyer.htm http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/34108-fl-douglas-lewis-1250057.html Licensed to practice law in Florida, Texas and Washington DC Both Douglas A. Lewis and the Thompson Lewis Law Firm, PLLC intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A. Lewis immediately at 1(239)316-3006. Thank you. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used,to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or(2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. From: Douglas Lewis Sent: May 31, 2017 12:41 PM To: 'nancygundlach@colliergov.net' <nancygundlach@colliergov.net> Subject: Triad RPUD (PL#20160002564) & MAC PUD (PL#2016-0002565) Nancy, In follow-up to our phone call and in connection with the rezone applications referenced above, I have been retained by a neighbor that resides directly adjacent to proposed projects (Mr. Colasanti) and will be attending the hearings tomorrow to provide public input on these items. My client is very supportive of single-family use of the properties. However, he offers the following significant concerns and questions from Chris Hagan of Hagan Engineering pertaining to the proposed development of these properties (a summary engineering report from Hagan Engineering will follow by separate e-mail): • Palm Springs Blvd. roadside drainage swales are inconsistent at the south end. There is no sidewalk. The pavement is only 19 feet in width. My client requests that a stipulation of the approval should be to bring Palm Springs Blvd. up to current code including the addition of a sidewalk and improved drainage swales. As an alternative, my client is open to exploring the possibility of modifying the Master Plan to put all project access (in and out of the proposed project) directly on Radio Lane. • Existing outfall drainage system for the subdivision includes swales on the east and west side of the subdivision along with an interconnection of roadside swales and ditches down to a lake and discharging out into I-75. A review of these swales (see below photos in link)by Hagan Engineering found that they do not meet County minimum standards and do not appear to have been regularly maintained. Some of the single family homeowners have built intrusions into the swales that impact the flow. As the County is to maintain these swales, a stipulation of the approval should include rehabilitation of the swales by the County and/or developer. (At your direction, I can provide proof of the existing swale problem by historic photos from the residents of flooded backyards and roadways). • The developer's proposed interconnection of the drainage systems under the roadway show that the projects should be processed as a single application. The fact that they are back to back makes this 4 easier. However, the traffic impact statement provided online was only for one project. These should also be considered together so any roadway impacts for turning motions, stacking, etc. would be combined and accommodated as a single project. • The onsite stormwater areas are less than the normal industry standards. This will require substantial additional filling. A floodplain analysis should be done so this additional fill will not adversely impact the regional floodplain. • Preliminary assessment of the existing roadway should be conducted and proposed roadways and finished floor elevations should be included in the PUD Master Plan to address concerns like the height (above existing grade) of the new roadway finish floors in relation to the adjoining properties. Accommodating the perimeter berm and roadways without discharging drainage out onto Palm Springs Boulevard will be difficult. Cross sections should be requested from the developer showing the slopes and heights of these elements and such should be included in the PUD Master Plan. • The elevation differential may require reconstruction and elevation of Palm Springs Blvd. to prevent discharge from the subdivisions. • The developer proposes inverted crown roadways internally. This is an exception to the LDC and is inconsistent with any existing County owned, operated, and maintained roadways to our knowledge. This design has some inherent challenges that need to be accommodated so that roadway maintenance is improved. • The site is going to have to be elevated above the existing roadway, and with side yards directly abutting the roadway,this will result in a negative visual impact. The request to reduce the perimeter buffer type should not be accepted, but the PUD should include a requirement 6 or 8 foot tall concrete block wall and landscape buffering along the entire northerly project boundary and also along both sides of Palm Springs Boulevard to provide additional needed screening. Homes are going to be set close together, and it is possible that side yard equipment would be readily seen from Palm Springs Boulevard. • The interconnect between the two projects will cross County water and force main lines requiring air release valves (ARVs). These ARVs should be hidden in the perimeter buffer landscaping to protect them so they will not be an eyesore. • Preserve areas should have exotic vegetation removed and be replanted with native vegetation from Collier County's approved list. No grading in these areas should be allowed. Additionally, • Consistent with the existing Triad PUD, my client requests that all construction access occur off Radio Lane and not involve Palm Springs Boulevard. • Consistent with the existing Triad PUD, my client requests that the dimensions of all existing easements be depicted on the Mater Plan. Also,that cross-sections be provided on the Master Plan(with elevations and required set-backs) for perimeter buffering, sloping, preserve areas, the lake area, and other features as depicted on the Master Plan. Click on the below link for photos of existing site conditions: https://app.box.com/s/5bwxbg5tgb547fkObn4vxlct2h5mnhw0 Douglas A. Lewis Tig THOMPSON LEWIS EL counselors at law 850 Park Shore Drive Suite 201-A Naples, Florida 34103 5 Direct Dial Phone: (239)316-3004 General Office Phone: (239)316-3006 Facsimile: (239)307-4839 E-Mail: doug@tllfirm.com http://www.martindale.com/Douglas-A-Lewis/1419349-lawyer.htm http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/34108-fl-do uglas-lewis-1250057.htm I Licensed to practice law in Florida, Texas and Washington DC Both Douglas A. Lewis and the Thompson Lewis Law Firm, PLLC intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A. Lewis immediately at 1(239)316-3006. Thank you. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. 6 Ln N lD rl Z Ln Co Z w U C W O_ l0 nrN co i--1 ni1 N Q u1 co N to Ol Ill V co M V 111 l0 l0 V N 11, .--I 00 • .-i I^ 00I •-i r-1 M 01 CO O N N ti N N V M ."1 tD N V O M N H 1n Z Orl NLn N O1 n W V N V IN N O Ln 01 Q1 N 00 h N 00 n H Lf1 N i=x'.:W • ul 1� 1� e-1 1� 0 ul v1 LO O O .--1 N V tD C CO UVO6O O N ,-i O `-' M O OO Z OMO Q 3 o_ 0 J 0 F Q Q Z O Q cc O s w J 0 0 aw o L'-' o Z Z p g ~a 5 ~ 00 m ~ co ¢ = w p 0 cc - N 0 NN 7) Q Q w - - w w p o w 'n \ Z > O ~ D W N M 1n M Q m I- Y O 1' O_ > Vl J I- w \ W 00 o_ O N O N N0 co 1= O Q m a F Z w I- a - w F w O • w w 0 d w 1i w 1^n Z = ~ Q Q Q a w cn Q Z G Q Q w LL. a Q 00 o r a O . uLU > 3 m O_ F F- Q O_ m Q O_ 0- w w w O Q 0,-- 2 0 0 Z LL 0 N J � Z Q ~ l0 ~ .-1 0 41 M I� l0 V ln r-1 ci 01 M 01 W 0J N N r-1 N Q C w ^ w ^ e-I N N CO N .-I 0 t!1 l0 M Co .-i L0 O O .-1 N V N M r I..- w< a s' e U Q O OO N O O N c-1 O M 00 `� O N Z O rn .-i O N O .-1 .-i 1ti O K Q, Z Q it _J 0 J 0 N ........ w a. F O Q O_ V7 0 cc e-i Z w F O O W W W 0 m LD Q F- J w Q a ). W O O W O Z O (� w > K CO 0 > 0 Q S w ~ O N O Z v1 J 0 J W > cc co > > i__ D V r D V Y w 00 W w Q w w w m \ F. F- K Z w v1 0o Q 'n o Q m FQ- Q Y > CC w Z > O - Y ~ .. .L6-' w m 0 0O U) N g Lo N m 1L O cc Q CO a w w Z Q Kul Q a w F- w O w w en O 1n w N Z F- m Q J Q °1 1n in w --L.-. 2 Q Q w LL 0 a CC a J O OcI- O p v > vii m J ', 0_ Co ~ F- Q H co U O w z o_ a ,'. W ? 0 2 0 FE HAGAN Douglas A. Lewis June 12, 2017 Thompson Lewis Counselors at Law 850 Park Shore Drive, Suite 201-A Naples, FL 34103 Re: MAC and Triad RPUD and ERP Applications Review Updated Engineer's Report Dear Mr. Lewis, This letter is submitted to provide a brief review of the pending Collier County zoning applications and South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD)Environmental Resource Permit(ERP) application for the referenced projects. This is done consistent with our previous correspondence and May 25, 2017 agreement. This report is submitted to outline my findings from the review of the applications noted above that are available on line. We have also had a site visit, received photos, and held discussions with you and the adjoining neighbors. Consistent with the agreement we have addressed open space, drainage, access, and utility issues below: 1. Open Space Calculations Attached please find a PDF of the Area Analysis for the zoning and ERP applications. You will note that the ERP,which is a more detailed set of plans, shows a 55.2%open space versus the County calculations that show 61.6% open space. This is above the County zoning minimum of 60%on both independent and combined plans. The big difference between the ERP and zoning plans is in the open space/pervious area. The acreage goes from 11.86 for the ERP to 13.24 acres for the zoning applications. The ERP application shows a smaller open space pervious area. The preserve numbers match up well. The pavement area is also larger for the ERP application than the zoning applications. The spreadsheet has highlighted the items in blue that are lake or water management and in green that are open space. The yellows are the cumulative numbers that calculate out the percentages. The SFWMD review of the ERP application also found that the storage capacity in the water management area maybe exaggerating flood capacity. This could require a further increase in water management area. 2. Drainage • The proposed land use breakdown only allows approximately 9%of the site for stormwater management. This is well below the typical industry standards of 15%percent for a dense single family project. The smaller than average water management facilities onsite will result in the need for additional fill. 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples,Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com • The preserve is bisected with a discharge swale and should be left outside of the water management area. The County may not accept the preserve with a drainage easement through the middle like this. • County and SFWMD drainage rules will require a reduced discharge from the site of 0.15cfs/acre. This should help with any overburdened outfall ditches. • A floodplain analysis was done to show that regional floodplain issues are not adversely impacted by the proposed development. The SFWMD is still reviewing this. • Inverted crown roadways proposed for the project should be efficient in directing stormwater internally and reducing costs. This also supports the higher density proposed. • Palm Springs Blvd. roadside drainage swales are inconsistent at the south end. The developer should bring Palm Springs Blvd. up to current code including improved drainage swales. ERP cross sections show 3:1 slopes within the County's right of way which may not be acceptable. The swales will also need to be improved not only offsite,but onsite to maintain flow consistent with the resident's photos noting flooding in these areas. • Existing outfall drainage system for the subdivision to the north includes swales on the east and west side of the subdivision along with an interconnection of roadside swales and ditches down to a lake and discharging out into 1-75. Review of these swales (photos in link)find that they do not meet County minimum standards and do not appear to have been regularly maintained. Some of the single family homeowners have built intrusions into the swales that impact the flow. As the County is to maintain these. A stipulation of the approval should include rehabilitation of the swales from the County and/or developer. • The developer's proposed interconnection of the drainage systems under the roadway show that the projects should be processed as a single application. This interconnection will cause conflicts with the utilities and require a County right of way permit. • Perimeter berm elevations around the new project are proposed at elevation 12.3 NAVD. The expected flood waters get high above the edge of pavement of the existing roadway. Roadside swales in these areas it may be 3 to 1 or greater not allowing them to be sodded, but be used in native ground cover. This may not be acceptable in the right of way and need to be addressed during the County right of way permitting. The ERP should be consistent with these requirements and the flow way should be reestablished along both sides of Palm Springs Boulevard. • The elevation differential may require that the reconstruction of Palm Springs Boulevard be elevated also to prevent discharge from the subdivisions. • The developer proposes inverted crown roadways internally. This is an exception to the LDC and is inconsistent with any County owned, operated, and maintained roadways to our knowledge. This design has 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com some inherent challenges that need to be accommodated so that roadway maintenance is improved. • The fact that the site is going to have to be elevated above the existing roadway with side yards directly abutting the roadway will result in a negative visual impact. The request to reduce the perimeter buffer type should not be accepted, but should include a 6 or 8 foot tall concrete block wall to provide additional screening. Homes are going to be set close together it is possible that side yard equipment and would be readily seen from Palm Springs Boulevard. • The ERP shows retaining walls will be used in some areas to segregate the preserve from the water management facilities and may also be required to flatten out slopes as things are more detailed along Palm Springs Boulevard and/or coordinated into a perimeter wall for visual purposes. 3. Utilities • Utility provisions should be made to accommodate the project with connections to the existing utilities on Palm Springs Boulevard. • Looped water distribution system will benefit the community with better fire protection and water quality. • The sanitary sewer system will need to have two onsite pump stations to accommodate the centralized sewage collection. • A sewage force main connection will be required on Palm Spring Boulevard. • A regional pump station network analysis will need to be done to make sure that the existing pumps remain online when the new pump(s) are added. • The County's utility services should be more than adequate to accept the proposed development. • The interconnect between the two projects will cross County water and force main lines requiring air release valves (ARVs). These ARVs should be hidden in the perimeter buffer landscaping to protect them so they will not be an eyesore. 4. Access/Traffic • The Traffic Impact Statement shows only the single project. As this project is being processed with both applications. Cumulative impacts should be analyzed and distribution should be handled accordingly. Request for combined Traffic Impact Statement was not provided or addressed. These should be considered together as a single application for traffic impact analysis and turn lane requirements. • The Traffic Impact Statement for the project does not address the necessary improvements that may be required on Palm Springs Boulevard and/or the Radio Lane to accommodate turning movements. 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com • Alignment of the driveways between the MAC and Triad project will require coordination to prevent awkward driving motions. • The elimination of sidewalks and bike lanes in these neighborhood though will put people in the road right of way. The internal roadways are proposed with an inverted crown. This means that the middle of the road will have water in it during rainfall events. This puts pedestrians walking on the apron,which could be a hazard. • The tie in of the project inverted crown roads with the existing Palm Springs Boulevard will result in some grading challenges at the project entries. This will be exacerbated by needing to maintain the perimeter berm for the stormwater management requirements. The new roadway may need to be considerably higher than the existing roadway. • The swale along Palm Springs Boulevard will need to be maintained outside of the turning radii for traffic safety. Below is the link to recent site photos: https://app.box.com/s/5bwxbg5tgb547fkObn4vxlct2h5mnhwO I believe this provides an outline of the open space, drainage, utility, and traffic issues associated with the referenced application. These projects need to be considered together as the impacts of both need to be considered as one. Please look this over and let me know if you have any comments, questions, or require any additional information regarding this. Sincerely, • — Chris Hagan 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com F I 11 / 1.,„c Q Z1 yI I I 0 Z I a LL x iRS?AS W Q .-4" . 2' LLi S x a W- w Z s V se, m S g W v g Q Y r x g e e x m O 3g I a — x v ' s ci 1 311 W i h$ Zia 'i''11!' I = v ZQ„0 \ / § i4 3 ? e s p _QggA6 S Ifl ,, 8 11 I O I : .=,, k lig11 _ I ri, I 1,1 I ,46 5 1: � I ., ,. . ,�.�.. .>I I ri---- i� I I � re I I lit. 1 = av I� I� w i1I ,; o a I y I I f i Iii z I I *:a t< L �I I I � I� I I I I �. � � . . / : : ! i . o r_4'''•,-.o In � r fix : dt IF— ms II-R aII 'l , � y --p't ., / ! it- � 3 -J `�.I j .€ — — -- I - H _ill I / � ' I I I 1 1 ; ;, "'i�1 . Ill .' IIS ' I i I l a i I;;a33 " " o I II � k 1 l i i i a S";'.,...,1 ,,,,-.„„- ,::16- . 11 6 6 11 $ Is ry !, i Ya i 1 ._ - Mil j -r�5 ,6#-----,--,----',—,41.4.. hl. _ ) ._ • fr, ILTI m e A • `r41 � I11 ms�_ i R l y E ,,�1 I !' T I I( _ =,l , 9, ,.. . 1 ^a ° I nl � I' 1 1 € W xI # t li ri � I I ^ 1 I_ . R iI I I I I d s 9 IE I I 3 I .' ''• ..:-. ii j 1 I ' „ 1 : ' i •%•.. • ( .',. , . og .'•• ', tftillil - j : i t I lin ' 1 il - '' 3 Eri ,) ' _, 1 . 41 g - 5 gpfi { (jy ,/, i �• g „t ....-:Z°:1' e .,, I I ,,, ,. i 3— - �',t'l ..i r;_ — _ _ ——_ __'”- SSI I 't a `. Q r=fix J , °'., II ii `I i I 1 vI R i 1 F p g g4 1 a: 1 Q$ �,; R__7 1 s 1 yy 0.= 5 dQo N N P I P ,r '� 4 t 5� O £ II' 11 Z QI 3 q ffrV E a € i ,, N 1, 11 z :_. 60,0111 WM MN Oh w: t as 111111j11 ,5 _ §+� o N E m g ' 1 AI - 1,��;' 4 ~ 48 0 / : - i i 6-a i ei__ _ rif y 1 11+ Z s i ' IS i E Jf1 y y " b° O G Z Er i r 1 o 1} a pVa Z z n g f- ! } Y 77 wE ; Pi w: Hw . O I ii V 1 F"# .. Y 2 f 6 as ig x2 i 1Jri 11 : Z W x" 'e\yy 1 111§ 3 i • q a vri .1 a .5 a ,gt § € o 8 v a- 1 _ , e mil g I. gg p 4 O= 1a / T- ! , �Y N 1 1 g tl i U r ' z = d ,_,, 1 i a E 1 e s 4 ot^ 1 if .! o oz6z z Y O , . , „, . $ I '''' w j , i B moimmiiim . I I 11 alAll: } V Fy i tl 3 1 I $ F. - 1 1 : MEMO I gat Iit i I : IZ ' _,:,`' , 11 , ,, li ti G" .. i ---.__.. r�lwwmmlloln..vuo— ' ... I .r. -7- _ (2 I N' I .I" y Q, I • fl G i. fffffi�� I b ° ` 1 1 0 l fffi� t 9 �,I �^ j fi t t e \ FieE Gi0 1 .I . 1e E° �; X111 ` 4' \‘ Ili ii I' 1 it 1 P I I g'. 7, 1 0 !,1 ...-;:. ----.-_1 t:51L;11-,1,1—: 1 . . Al le! ' I 'a 1 A, 1 ;I 1 <5", '� i.t ) ( 3 1 '; :_ _.1 '' .,1 —-• � 41: I,e f .,a° . ~ IIILL l �3 1 1 1 t A �� ,Il •3 '�'(1 '. "r {z, V/.�1 0t its sii It ( I E~..,E �1 I E f I�" E lul A �1 4- 414 1 _ -.-... 1 'mai1, j it a l ,11-11,'-ti-I, t '•, 1, ,,,„,,,t_. .. ,,L.7, ,_,.. .. 1, i 1 �ITgI 1 , x 1� Iii 0 t tl , X1[0 ,� 1 Feil i+d G� 1 tiI 'I..i = S �-+ i'�. � IIIt i E 1 ' �F. I> 1 IrI I �i' I II µms•gg - x a . o I I X71 1-' r o Z �. s 3w 1 �_ o ) P 1 ' 114 a ? 4 ,- f J l `1 1 ...UMW to xE I s 1 8 y g11p I '�g a �.. 44 & j ll � xt.if Tam+ L II 1 `c _�' 3 $ 1I1III 1iE 3 0- t t i , , , Igigillfg=g 1 $ I t , ,v. O a A x@ Z m 3 i , iIIUIVUV fi yy g&'&0 Oxen:"a c �^ o �g "�� Y s= Om 6aetr .k V $ 1 -moi c / ii .22mmimm..om 1 71 cci' i 111411t„I l L i * STM. 1 1 NE II. MO I 6 f 1 IrEl 111111 NI NM 11 OM -- MI 1 I ... ... 2.**.' 1 „ t ' ,j. i i ;7'H I - •••\....1.- O 1 4,-.R:.... 'C'Iitt . .. r' p� A 'W " N.,,, •4,,Plif -ate 1 4-4 E ; ^! ! • . 4--- i eW244, 1 ' i ;If I y R_ t �t $w y C € e 1-;.-31124,'•'-** t' . ?: IS 11Th z 1 r zs ;`z` .`� 3 I !� �L_-- {� -I 1 '.- "4.,-li'•**1 22 1.."., I 1� p Ii im: %!r l s: . 4.74= --- a g . j Si 12 2, a x Z I sruw '17:: .R z 6K1%G6 - A ---------- --1-41 2 ,''1'' : -:---—11--;'7:7:t ._ \L ;,,,,,:11 X31 �, Nii Y.i .,i t7.:7.-.7.7..--,.....)4 •. .0 a 4 x 1,i igh iiA6 f. ,I ii 111 c. 1 '' til ak 7 I 7, 72.,_,IFTL: . t*41, TT •s•T i i i � £i Rill III 111 i I I Y ♦if aa *1 r i M gggiiigri 11 6'1' y q +e 1III & z z + u II b S T 1111111111111 lidlihiltiti h O H •% O W ,, Za C T a gN � � W w '0 ,Eo r� W a z 3 w 3 a 3 Q m � °r H g o w z a z w � � GS a � o Vsd Hw x o w z w am z z0 N- W = 3 a a i D a w s Q o of T W N ° aQ = = = Z � 3o .m O w Z 3 LLO ¢ a -6 Q H d p4 .„ woo a s u 3 0 1L�L1� ^o w c Z w F w a ¢ ¢ v p p 0 g C n w, w 0_ , m < , „, n m m , 7 0_'L`' On O g, <LEF> f % mom °z R A ' g, CA D a is n��'ui.is tang w 8 w az W U a wWQ acc C/D �■rl cup) .cf- 1 V OJ 0 Z CO, M 0 c s �'" o flq to W Z LL COCC , 'mss. , e : ; Z =^ o ~ ° Q w W N Z ��m � o �r U �_ J .-. �o o X �, Q. rn o a C O e Z 3 O J a` "' Q (24 omi F- J d X -�`3 $® b �Z C/] W UO co 0 ? of F 5 u ZW � U ® , ltbAy.R z Od:a.w G: II— U ct CC 0 i gilliiiii) Li- (..) .411 z V �fL '�t°"�, m 00.."."Y�ym o _ f a� b t �`ai� 'o wu:ati� T 0 0 Z 0Ez U = °z o=sQ a � fo `Os° zaOR � 2Rg zw g w= 4. ZU =ow n ,FgwQro 8�W Q :,c±1 .7445 p 6# aW .7:g-i''.7:g-i'','' �" Eo O a 1Pc mN .2 L! a 51 S4 ll5 is .Era o i7, z F S i Z 3 as i = i ° gg. �.'@i zF :q gig= i i 1,0g a fQq 3@ CI A z 4 6 .i`sid.•e3oecn35ag.it. , ? ea §5eale o .. 74 z w a r Z 0 zzS E _ - eF; .i oWyE - 4 S ' 03d'3' i e 'iis s g s 9 } b g a timi1hki 44 , &.p p si iL 2; € :='5 .€ii ;€1 iol ai > ! 31 5-$ F' 3s4Fe. e r - E•a a g •5 =5$ E 5 aG 4a s @ 5 A =5F°i' k a 5 �o d 9: -_. 5 _ 3= his i e. i' 5 �_ .h € a 4. bh gg E-3=••g r ri a3� g`'Cd1 8i, le S a a3 a}n ' ;;WW1° a 5 ' 3:'p Itii= ya 4 i; :� d a � 5 3iE 'a3=i i i ei eg3e 6 ' g3 a£ _ 5� a 1 a § la E- €s 5 a i a51„i5: ! i 05 nig g a - 3 1W g; ge ! s/ ! t 95 4 ' § i a V., 0.0 9i $ a 1_ ca•,A !its BgE Ci € 5g 5i l3 i 3 E 3 1 „ s ,1 s �o £k 5 g � as a= i 5 4 0 $1_� � ” a qs'y ; = P a _e z . ga p 1 ; a 4 3a3 5 a 1e3: E a °€: E ap.b85g a ae �i =; ° a s3 a° J a '� =E _�iv ' €n ?ie°5 €=' '' 7: H 401 b;r ie4iiit i5 §P 11 1t a 1.i R a s € LLo $3 i■ ; 4 55 8 F E a` xa€ _ ..z= ib55 i a ;Oi o Z C A F ii } 1' . _ _; S i g ; � u i4 � ; =b- 5�� a 3!6 � �£ i p ��5ea o:s5 ;�� ° a= Ne �5 b =g� � �iE : Ia I!3 2 5 i-,6 i5 evg58a yA 1 < k ? I "`-- a a �2 6ode E a s �� s b 3 .�° . � Z�s _ s �� 3 > n}= s e� ie'o t; ? u 125 n 3S -'ix 3 _ ESa s 1g a Dp +5r ..`a4 s a.� a5 - �'a a f 5� 3--d Y 3 ¢ xa i n _ �E5g €a 3 a ■■ as t € g E a; gE a g o °1$ ilei r ;E3, €; 3i 33 3IIa 3 3 VE i i' 1i ¢c n ; 3y� 1 i G'3' i 1' cG6 az5= 1 gi4ii p [ £a 4' h ! 1 ; I` o Sa°"d A's � � a rz „e. s so's _ n°i a a i - .I ad le �, _ii: i3 e'- 8 5 l- l3 1 i 5 =. :; - 36 a 5g a 55.3 c i• 4 i '.ie a 3 :€-�E @�'== ;nil _g a w .?a i s€2 E e F .a g si ' s ss s : a3 `s gat ,5 so : € PP S € i ;€e E ' F F 61 ! is OP i ; se ' ; ; 2 : g2 5, ti 3 RI °s 3 i; i % 5a i 1s A•. 4'1;iti it- oa a i ; t a d i€ i c 6 tl. 10 5 la - n s e� 3 33 :i, ti ea? 9 a 8 i _- i ' a j a s -3 ag E r - s Y ? n: a e, '3; ;14 i$s as n Q E 1 g i 4 is E : • h. tti '11 < ., 151 1 !. 61 14 • W\ W oP imi!gi 1111 1 ! !!, s_ O o a FiiBrl. oEma Kd iiW z > a o E l}_ z Ivilgil l 'i r! 15E1 3I i m '— °d / \ /oEs iawFF! 111151� 1py81119i 3, G Go c .'..t tee. _ .. _ _ a O i z Z .a4 Q ! Q a = .. ' ti-..1 Z w a - ! F 4 0 _ .. : , -,.. -,. ,‘.,...-., '4,--:,,,,,, , ., d ,,, I . C :.-- z , ,.‘ _ i`A'19 N ��'v 6 O \h , .may � F I J Q \ .. ,..,:. ,,,* - 0 z r G w J \ t N11 t -.. , a - 5 V V - \ l' i z dr u 4 T - - 1:: // F { F 8 P i 0 , 4 t ia 44 s§ sg Ygae-^sg ap� = :5 it 0 p§ n E.1 E N3,5 e/5= _t_e 8 S S e_T P d" 0d4... � 3' g Cs 9 W w W 2 - q d N y § i 1 aa'i ti `m p0!ill e: l3 a g .E F ' o'" u = 1 s g 111 3g iii;!lit ; !! ;! i i f s g1110 o W 9 ' ? stl 9<' �'k € w o ?:' _i 0 ' i U WA Of :« ?'figfxf € 8 E SIS - E E _ 7 S Q / 2 I•. L 1" Ili LI L _�} Iii ii' Gs i li i� i Iq q M„,'.` „ \. 1� t j 111 iii , I 11 lit _i I. Iiis � 1 ' H R 'q .1 ;11 Ill - I� 11 I1 R`�,`'a ♦111 II III SN I1 11 III ( ,-�_ r....__,___-,,i t I.. 111 111 hi II I 111 i �� JI IL Jll ' 1IL J / I'1 il' i A — 2 — A 011VA3'VIOe s0TERIdS wry \.`\ I z 3 % 7,,.,r7„-, f,F----- —... -- '. , ,r— I __, . , ______,- .:. ,t_ ,_ 0 .., ,-:: ,- ,g„ .., . . , 13, ..4. , , . ,., ,_. ,1,. . : la, 1 Lt . . ' w I fi r;`' 1-1 ,1 1 I ci m II mI +p �.u� ro ,-7, I t, I ® [' i ” 1 1 TI id. I 11x1 m " I' I - I I I c --t — 1' 'I I-- -1 r---- I il____ ---1 1 1 ' e^ sa<i<OE g Z`,' 1a It `1 I I z z��o m I 11 m " , I 1 a, ; or � ' e 1 i` F II' , I€ ,.�{_.I " I I1 Fg"Iaatl3s I I i 1 I €g w A' I lI - " I. ,� T 4 tl� q . ` II 1 �`F I� I 1_ 1 1 m 11.71: 3 ' I I 1 8 4 �_ 1�a1 I it I I - I I ;'I N, o" gi: yy GY�.3 1 1 -:I -I I r i ,;,7,I€I 1 o �:m i • (\am\\\��'�-tl3tltl NOLLN3l30 3 I I 1 I '- 017i ' \\ /NOLLN313tl — — — I H p., w $0 7...-.. ..,.'; �\� rt t- � I �I 1 3 133NJR 7NINIML I /94 - I Is ++I — --- _-4 •--- - .♦ �& . ' ,Q 1E6 1r ImilI HH 1 — I --- 3'a ' a8 °' i r am 1 1O , L� � 1 R ¢ I a 1 - 2_ -11 11 , g s . 11 R \ 5 .. s I :\ 1F • 2 ni_ 6 f IIibEi - L !uu1tI ,. b F t 3 I -. 11 12I Et g W c Sg 8 i s II J g` U zi = LzC - wr ' ' c S Y ssw w s rite_ _ Z z8 2 wf i y iW I I I I oin IM IM MN N ii I. o�a1 � i ... 1 # *_ x __ ds - WQ s= woa = 0Qo { .Mb `'` a = • _ _1. _ i 0X6 2 I / ai.', m R t 1.. :% III t 141 - iii I QIP i, Il Ill . $ M ', I`..i.. ,/ 0 1 F I' 1, W hili a 1 P J 1' n. ' 1( -- �' ---"�i 1 ,_Iii- - "--.._ �_...-. 1 g $ !\ _ `� 11 I I' III 1 I11 to i R` ' N�-7 �� ill I 111; II II 1 IIII ,d 1 ( j —--1.... 11 I 1 11 I{ I ill C" �i1! I i J L U i ___ - .._ — I u v 3'1f o S`JNMdS IcIva -c t a - ) z - _. r.. .. ..- _.. _ . .e - - Z "Pi ' i I ig:gym _ f ea;F! b I -1 m - I � o o,. -p. 4... fid_ .. I I t6 i ce 17, p 6 ,c, r.,„); I , P ;..n, I is ' I • .y , -- tl IL 541 ^ ( 3 I 85 � 1 31`i. I N a I a 11, ' 3' xl J Lir. _ 1 i`'I'''''41 "------7. .-," , '1 i� Y a� I 3.3. i s 1, P I A I I1`,,'t t; ' I 1 kI N :',/ m r I I 1 �e e j � vaw xoiu+�ao ,� ( I _ 1 3 y g J _____/" I"' ,.� x f O WN 14 tnT ...—.5 W�, r ' 1.14'z.,":i Iw m II 1 a i int L f , I 3 i `-if1 ?r._T'` ; i i i I F gf 5 gY F i 1 % g 1 i A L 4. ii m }g?g og. G `S i E s� il✓m < .1Ess'EZ EE G o a g : iz .W"S - s 2 m sa [4-a al >Egi :— VzpN-P8' " a _ `Li ..Z Na- " W E z s a s i`, > 1 Z In Wo 3- I: q 3 o S N o 0 0 3w w s a o m W 3� LL a 5 5 d Y`eeg Z gg . vVl7 — C3.$I0, a C7 1. g§ i ff i ..I F 312'2 . .a + ■�■ i .a+ '+'{ : : : _ : ¢ z e$ '$ °p r 1 51 5 8 g� O Q o dao Y=F 1- o S 1 I l cr q> 4 � 6�= 5W � Vi 3 0 $ rg o Wat' - 5 Q if 2 I I I iz__g g g , ; 0 0 O , ,. b , x \ L. 1 : : : j ,ggao °'o3 L'. zola a 3 e `,.`.` __ �� 11t I11 '1 1 ' 'ii tjl 11 F 71� a --r, a t..<-.:744-1 , i I k 11 IFS I 61111 , 1 Ild 11 ,gl , 1 -11 r1 `I II # I11 I I i I: II 1 ^I— t L 1 I. II t71 11 I Li! 1 11 g 2 y o C ll 1f, I lfilll I I I I y ral I II'i A `I t c �� I y �)i iii 1 _ - h....4 "_ _Y'" ,y,, I\ Z M. _. . _�. .'37--; p mronavloa sowaas H-na .1 _— _ ,--_ Z z— __:____••-- .. � mac.m ., 4f1., Imo_.�'.. i 7 es i �,+ I ow 'E ' tj i' 1 3 I C! 3 _ . `I H .J �� 1 � a y „ Il 1. a 1 I Z o 77 ��/ It I � I I ,m� ' F w z '... 1 Y I F' t 1, II 1 O Q a I I 1 , 1 �I i i Q ' '. " , 1/1,. ,scig L I ; . — Is.`0 lel._„n € L_ "p� li _�s 1 11 a 7 : 1 fl I a F 1 1 r r I 1 ,$ 3 e? 13 e m 1 �' =I �� 1 "� 1= ��I -€ 61 • 'i1( s zge3ais a a 1 i a p 1 8 a. .- w a .. r1 ,,,.n inni 1I ji i 1nYa I I II ' 1a1 °/` � ,rn �' "� 1 sII 8 q \ vv3wrioluF a n 1 ,, I ' i'4i it �1 ii El I airy€ae C of i'" n � !111' 04' qq 1 s -, VI lsl3ll 5 L�'i•� d Ips i ' I 3��Y� wW I. _ � 111 i S. •- '' II i " g P, "g 'i i '.. 1 'g "i i 5 r)110[II In 2 1 2 ? +. -----• ..._ ... pc.__._ _ __-..', .___.._ .......___ 1^' 111 4. M o - iu L y \\ x 11\ \ / : 3 -1.1 .i t i I, I riii L !111. I •I� s F E, sg I ti i y3 a 3e S Lmi.t1N g 3 s L4 0 • r . l ii "I, 1I I 21 4 w ., i_\� ,-1`I- -t-ii II 1 i i r i r m i I ry I ry =20 *}�;M4;1 II F II II I, Iiii 1 s t ._. I A I I h I s i `: k -i i 11 �'� E I _... ns= a � . g ;s 1. gl 3 4..# OA18 hwnaS wlVd _... 1 'rr - S _ CL I- u e ..�--.r� 11�. t• a / ,Ad „ BM , J O ,i10 €°I ` m rN 1 11 z E + + t 1I s g O. 1 ” t. ,, m I�I 11 s M a; 1 ,/1 is s or .e i0 I. I B I g IR _ iill a Bii y" -111111 a �_.. - e I INE i t ,11 A III 1 —nag, -tI . Sry s4 sa : m az 1 g= i.l �g llibB ' a - cI zQ I I �tig i i $1 $s; N sp� ,o P 1 .5 I i i . I!! i ° 1 _ 1 R t3a5 I r10 a ,t!l !vzH I agI w aygym }�iPvm ; 1 1 I' X I n re m 11 1_4111 4 V3ntlNOlIBM g /NOON3130 v I 1 r ,. _ 1 Y:;.,"- mwail; 1 _ 1. O t s 81 - ry m Y '^ I b o m m v ry o w u . ry o I1 R l — - I 1 1 F • a z c i E g I 1 4 F i s s 1 i 3 a ei sg 0.1 li 't:: _ IIIIMI p mINICM rill u g w W c -.. au M IR. �" a 5;, e i Rm - - - - m o 4 • Lu 74 cc 174 i 13 . — s 1 I �� I p 8 z z IN„m Ir. I I � re w l - = LL W— 3i o ,Rei $ a ■ I _ / 3a Ie T. "kik I— 1 4 Iii.' . a pl; ' g I g=1 1 =xd I I, ., . /^'' . 5 m e _ I�� I 8 J o m �I'. 4"', W_. s i t X90 :,Y I ® ,m ._. a I idz kyrg z i m en 15 ' - e ——— mo 8 m a a m m a o IT q V, Z = RADIO LANE ? ` dG 3 I ffff I F f I i I I e 2 f { `I i LI ,..__ ,, fil_mill. 2 III mcivii v, m a g 3 a 8 rn 6- Q Vo 6 1 = E ,, I Ie 1 Fl I aIII Y1 � SI9 " ei " a me a " g I 1j A 1 4111 I ,, III ' € I I 11 J�.I iI 1 -- _ •.,, 1 4 A :,, 4 In a Q $_ __ _ .. _.— .J ,. _.._ — OAl$SOWUdSWNd --�: -III 'O U w I- Q '1:L.'"" —.1 e 1 Ila 6.°9& L0 pr: i s.s3 vssmll a- .... _ a i1 ° m _ I r5• m ii h I —g z 1 a s 'I s 4 N _. I w lit 1 , 1 �e 3 h 1 ¢ 1 '1' I I' 1 � @ a� I 451 y 4 i € w - —Y ' SI 11 f c a:1: r , t CI I 11 I` tA L15161£ Ii. I `aid 1 - 1� 1 A 1 —— I L o 't!" as €— — 1 .L.........5.5.• X15 w•. ^•—N a J •- ,:: 11 I I �.__ _. _.. F f 5s as �..r i. 1 .0 w h ®,�„: I a a $ ry "3 1 1 a€ I1 q. _ I L, 1 II 1 : i ., — '$P otN 7.1 I I € a o ` I N 1 °I. g 1 6 IT, !II I : 09� �l I o� I°� lo aegg . I ...i -1zP1V� x1a g3s r " 1 I ^J ;h 9 g �� --1 1 ii O 1 S s I it 1 _� ��! ; . _ i 1 >j.o w 0 I; a 1 a 1 =1 21 $ m -1 0 m " o m P N o —o A " y _� -—_1 - k 1I. I1 1 s b/ � Y 1; f I $ z y4 I Y I i 44 xg a 'n 9,i 1 s 0, •1 L.. 1 I q - S 1 1 I i mit h I O�+� �. a:_ i ryii1i u w 'a 1" 1i a cT :.� _ i w 4 W 8. Y m a a a 3 O 2 W T a 10 -1.-r---- c = S Ag--= I 4. o . a€ G 48 :a g o /g z o z 0 w u' o 3 ,„ z 4z� = U?s _ § ogo= dw E o 2 §- ;.!zW ,; I i 9 z _ se 5g. 0 5 s N ca :: .,.. : ,g,,.-,,,:::::.. ,..,f:<, _ :,. A: as x E _. w I § , �$ €fie II i k”41 est", ,, p . , , m 11 b pi s il iU 11 Oft,A E _ - n i W 5 r a; T-- "E `§ as a g ~gi 9 € a - iS 2= 1 W"_ W' i � z o xI W R�� {Wy Y 0 3, U. 3 n N e Ili . z U = «Q� Z U^. a 5 i u 5 w MIL. z a a a' b si . s 3a I F z z � s / " g; ; a w s 1 a ;41 aegii., It; it ii G. p '� �_��iC7x a a 'ss e--.o,.- a-. a _ _ C7 F z; .x Ee o C E e cam � '�B g rCges �� N 1 i lig ;n:!!poi l! 3 a4 _ - s4 5 � a� 33 3 p a� a e Z `� £ iF7.'" ts= ggee i. V. x `� ` �i 8 W q W ¢ t3 e2 p `�=cfgig =° 3 a▪ 8 adst_� pi,L x H a g/ 1-1516gesgxs gi€ Iaa:`sg, e: W • e wlQ= z x x«,�. q�, d it lii 2i s i 4 - 6 Gg V i S 1 sg a �g =11.k U it II! �; ei �e z ii A WI 0 z �� as _ _ Z a �j� 2 z �� a q ;h aF� ' o ` pp; PEp s 41 q .. I I it G I I- z IV'Ji ,yCD ip`. E�; $a 3 1 IE ! L' UC7 u p . ; I � q as a5 F" x...w� I alas' 0 a O d $ii U a Y a - S.`' ` /r r j_3 v v ,Mii a�' :0, 0 ,.," ..'-] ,.'S .3 111 ! ril i A 8 � I x . i I a$ 4 � . ' xe 9 c s fi ii i 1�`00 a ?, .7 a ! 7- .i 3=s,, " 6 sa _ e z s 2 it a Ili! '$ } 11 1 s,„„.„,„_y I i1 1_r•� yl°s t 19 fi f IN 1} b ; ;a `r� 1 ji, d] $ i #� :!t#e 3• i f' ;t i II (, r_ayr _ - 1 ±pl § �t i`}i 3 41 ; ,l Fi al i! a;3S 0 1 11'ilii s I,', it i . -dk:ifx:k• .g ne 17 .91; i; g g lata Ea #F, io 11 1 w :.aa - - _ , °._., ” s�g i!1 1 ii i,Ti ei��9 lip dti ii igg i=s l:�' is k .� �' i €!'��3!' t s6!t{ts!i!�t ! ,�!j it ��I��l��;�, a t sta }`s;pp 1a i? VIII!” $!!NI a. F P = A ! 1 1 ,...e4r,,,•'..> t� $ !;i I�,,! illi!�• i!�a�t�!�i _n — 5 - is a-ez aa:�.c::: ,.tl'.. u i -t S f z^3.35.595.e, U „13 ? ! _r? w 21 ° 11 1, X. '-' w , 1 41 % o I—— 1 . , n 1 �t! �-�(0) N ..„011=-7111• a b o� !�= l.. iii , . II'I (0 S i _ o l �I bi marI E J . L. €u 1I-7-1xM a 53 xx s p„ a i i!:4 Z1 lev .71 ll / to 1 i ..,1 i I 11 t ' — ■ .. 1 1Uii1' II ! I'l r1;u it isl '1 11 :; i Ii � '.ii"! p 1Iii ��1� i I 'r11� 4 �jl ;�1 0 .- I j, I, I i1 III j1 vi g i auMir • 11!111 II II hi II(11111 = i I ; I: .{ a=I i;vi - 1 Iii d{ 1'114 ti'fi:1i'I I 1, g ' i�lii,i'IIL't11�',d�tIl g le � i1..1111/1111.. di him 1' . 1 e 1 I}lhlII• ' ., d s 111 IIIIIM Ir Cr 11,1 v =, 11, ilial 11 I, ,' I 1 1 11 1,i a' �mionl�l PI Y Y F''1; `I t 1,of It I J i, IP , 1 I r�1nIhhl 11 II I i�i i 1j, fall!OP ' I l l.. 11111111iii { I,ji 11 !: 1 I\ n j I ,i F c®.1111111lu i ' II== I ! I6 11 e'!i)'I!'i lr \ ,1 11,i 1±1I s I1�ltummn ilk PI i!H1 li / i 1 ;{ 114 a L�flliiiiiiis - 4. J i s jP l I i i it 3 Egg::: i'. s ' 1 P I t 9'° tljll ` 1 1II nal 6 -- '! 1 Ills I 5 i lit I;1 i 1 ill Z o ululnt "Illi I tl,l 1l 1• i o I3`1.111din111 r 1 i IS °� ghliMI; I 11 ; I 1' .�. s 1gI'`IIII o Z 6 w 1� t 1 : 1 w 1 � 1� I5� IiI!I l ; '� �I � 1_141 E& ' I N I I i 11 1 ' 1 Illi Ili 11 I1 11N t iiig nil 1 li [7.s �ii Iii 1 I il ill IF f_/iCd5'g • �@ 2.I. 99 Tom^ ::x F !.C'I: --• I> Vv."! I I • i I 1 a IN, I 1 i!I 1 = i a a' ;`e 1 • ' a N I 1 li I I I '1 1, : I .Y ir a'• I g 1 1 �1 IF ' I I i' I I i' jlj i I ` IP,..i"w II 6 1 1 i I i I .i I sa € f I Boll pg r i—„1�= I •i!i i 1 it !I' 1 = I—Al1 Ii 1114 ,gjrl'i i it ii P1 rl 'i = { 1 1 1 „1 1 J Oki i!I `Ilil I.i 1 E 1 !I 1 ; :t +1 11 Viii liiiel ' i PI{'I 1 j I I _ _�d 1/1111 •e I 1 i 16 `VII ii!N�I / I ',I Prf 1 I i'4' ,...y S ;C i I, i I 11(ill ililyl I I P.!:''11 I ! illi !i j `yg°� I i eel I i�1. ,1111 b1CioI j 1 TIM Is,Ijj 1 , ,x11111 i i1e51• LI i!I ii, 1 I' ti11161 Ylll' I Illjl Ile; I gilt!' I I 111 i 1,I.i !{ 1'.1.'Flip 1 ie diY i! i 1 AI t se P i I, i 51, i i ` 11 illl�If I.lilt ! li Inihoi!II WI EI ,i, X1,,3 its i Ii �i ; F i r I IS F FI II;1! NM I nil!i I i Yl r,I till'I Ill .I�_;1 I Sl i.s __Qi iilM:I- iP,itl'I ” Ie• / e it s i 1 1 :: .i ilr .1 ill.':i! :iia ill j 1 ii egie I-;Ii C C5 i; i I t 3- i4 Fr A.; • 7 'e I gag; . e ;/. e' .. .. I 1 �iiE 11 1 li u1 i11 o : 1 I? f I 141111 d Iu i Is 1— g 1 1 rill II ii. i , ii i' i is i�ll7i Iiili;i� Ill I �1 �? 1 ' E 1� 1 �Ill .11111II 1 •iI I ,11lII _ ! 1 I i it ;E i Ona�' EI'I iI 411;r I iai Ii1 t}; I I= g tl ll,, a9 g g S! ,3 y5 5 lil, , 11 gt II ilk ! _1= `,i 1E Qp 3e a 1i11f1i °II 3 ii 14; 1 i !If.! `! vii s 1.._I i ief 9t t tt tE E < 1 PI 1: 1! I! •1 J� I € f Ii 9 iii f 1 i t41 l lig c m mit i ! ilii fill `_I0 i� p " iii a F _ et , 6I =i1t:=3l= /it F.1 i! t. ,,I ttf Ir t f � ! ! §=�xd gill of II, p l ffl: gy 7 �n �€6 it tCei 11 --I 1 ` l 1 !lf1 E `ilii - r ,1 ' 1 t1 . Ali z Lu z / I{ __a 114 ,<t, IL 0 3 J Ill • W I II_ i a 6 a � ,PB �° � 16,�N1 � I jail if I Ill!. ;,fit "f Si � y. !,� t�fit flit- :s'j19! : fl I�< 'att"its 4 ll.,tftt 91111`°t 1i.1ft..,.1 ti �I.i 1t ' I.i< h`;t tq llti lilt It Ng it ii,H f- -I.1. Nl tit En 1 :tilJllit1l! IR jfl 11 ill I . le �ft !IIfQI ffa �!l °�3<fE i t1i`�•� 1 `Ns 1144 t t autt 0 0 4Ee gtf1+ t ill, fiF6. 7 t. 11,1 = ,. Vii! 1� iif f!Mai 1_ t ` jEl •-. Illi a :1'1!I f` ,ttsl ong s c'� 1 l i t h t t '1 li !r �t t5514:1:,01; Ifii,irl f5:la t j' I ': 1 e 1 fl i NI I ilk" i fitliaQ t ktl!1111 t'�w ii 1 `., !I I; q ._ auP : 3 i -'t,( )i ! t �et�zar MP,: ,h 1 mei.. fill ll I l - FRi ill Sin . n IF=711 ice- 1i c_e :: fZgi ill f ! I I I I 1 i 1 f `: 4 i f 7 ! f 1 I ii gi s a n ' ( 1( 1 f 1 1 1 r ii! a 0 i, °fie O W glgly A ijOP 3 W c ms`s.. W g ` � y !! i ;''' s s, !E 3y 33��` I IliiiN o„Yo ...... I , Q c g 1 °iW` fr¢ is ,hit I , , W a i i SEE ii ;W w' Zai g h a R U ill dl !ill ax 151_ CCEg =i g g �I -- n a g g;15 F. -----r- 6g-p! a _ : z Z - i lhigg lI 5.p iy . \ / Uai $ !g io ,H;; Z 5. O Z e W ,, z O \ � \ ., ;' i o g'r! E rU a xws wo o.-pI_ .. z a : s c "TiO a ” 3< �; m U H a 34 W_ €� �� a € al i g 4 \\ \\' i .s'¢WSW ..I F4 6I ; T�s,q. O osq9 \ \ < ; \ %,--,'' k3 ilii )1 \ ,„Y 4_q y!, �y R1 -�1rm r i \ ! Tl \ -- a ¢w ,,3 iw 533gi ': 3 .r 1,„ f. ''...-hil 1 6 ! 4:5; W ;�4:h::: U z 2 r. Q4 a gr° 1 y 1 gn \ liEl; IE' .'4 z !i 5o-g FSg p = a 0 9 iiihi O g Sas;o .. O , ;, g �a " 11 1111; 1ggl1 g P 4 ggg!I� _ 11° ;;"Ili w \ 4V:-.,- ?,. $ Pi Y Sae€gg c4` - ,. -4— o - �\; \`` �$k-� s"ci=ague �d `a a i \CR\\ i tl4iriqii5/0 8' 1 , =c, .. \ fg U ximgEi . W !� H a - / g z - 51 a g rm o 1 \\#;A:,.-. • - -- •aj Z 3 pp ":`C O 6 _ El i W 4 il43E W li '� ' 1 \ e \\ a �'�i 0 IN F p IRlel_ ! gU i \ u t \ \ < \ U I < W s:z Ca �, wla�Lp { 1 L4 �Q ri E 's i $Z3 z \ i \ 0 ' Ig v' -E"� \ • \\ .. lay., `• ° s i 5 5 r,.. ......0 9..9.9. . 1SV3 „�� 1 f SLR/ (692)rel SLSOL6S'6EZ wy)p 1181HX3 3DVdS N3d0 Y 6011E 11e9,deN I00 9v^S 9•.a 11,ed1,11,M 0199 ' 8 ZS69 9t Z99L SS 909¢.1,101,/).M.9.0¢91,11. 1SV3 a II 9.�NIf1iiN19JN3 3a83A 3NId .».., p% g a I �� ` .y.1,, �i F E i i DNI Il e'nz i F I , UUUUUUUU I I ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ 1,a 1 H+I H* H.+1+, OUODUU 1,n.-In nnlmn ,n nlvinv'-.Doo n ¢¢¢¢¢¢ L] ZO NOS,-oorn.- O +I+I+I+I+I H Q Q I I 1,r�lnNn aFa 1- No oo S V I , '',',_L-7 O O C Z "o—�0 0 L 1 Qgi >g = a wwt7a 0 O - o 2 I 1, D&OIawW, a raUZZ ,2, E_-',5'1Z- 2,^ Z V ,�oao,zfo wL0rl�ww ¢' > Z wacce O pW a , I °Zo1� 5 p „ce .5G AO=w 55g LiUUUZ F-w micerr0a w o _ dzwFo7, N ddaao an ,,, Lr > >� gooago IA v'v'v' zY uuuu z 0 Co , , rO�M LL'wu3 § ZZWWulluwe, ¢ gaga 0 a F. I , o�wZz� aaaa~ 00 O V V NN F O 1 oli��zw 8 OO000 Q- F- zZZZ,,,w ¢ a Z ?O?inwz O www.,„ F- F-o zl� 11111111 100050 ° �� I , , , r. , sa wave I III A ,II i _ S Iii g nI ' 1 ' 1 JI a 5 I h W 1 8 � I - - - -- 3 + ° d , I r 1 , i - N �� '"'s. .i s x ;v / 1 LY n I 1 8 1I -- , .. "x r' nx a - . _i_ii-_ i". i I L J � iii GAM 01411MS IN IN. . -- — 1 I 8 I I 8 3 3 m04 171 ,9 ‘.!b-,„,,;" '� br744/1011 "'gg��e a "Alt e W N O L_ '"PKP�� 25 8 OM r- gz1w 1 b o, 8 ig8W`" Fmsa $ w g .z a= aegq, zo Ld = yzm w G oX 984�"o'aa k' i HMI € 'eN m '1618 o:z44 a �oN g G 9 a€-9 - o� to LIMO.% 0] 4�zzFn 8 z Caw m .5....-T <.55Z6 aj g § z 3 84 a s=-o3w� n m oog.,a I o ffi a � s sne 3 ozw `�"$2' OM 0 w sa il w9 o tR '71a Q 8a P 1 o1^. i8s 4$n ,ep E 'g'342'44 4 EWA�� aozo�m a � g i � ; k w; g° &8= 8 ��Fa. p�o IliT: zr ,N tw 4"- m a r0r 9, o :$$ P iX I1$ w � ash 13WS woLt, � 6�as z `z a: .18 a S5 a 1 j h y ;a3 i =L 5 %p i ��-g-rg i W3 L z o8ig': 8 8 �° 's 8 ' 1s 8 g$ h 8 5585 aha ' -,�€1,, g,, _6�"�0.a F F- a p w I— a a w Ln CC w p3 qW ZZWO Za p• o wpm E" a 0 Z < a M ill. a li3? 680 0g „ 1 r z -0 — .• Z a = gyIM i ...8 „"8 a g , =m aw gY W cna O � w II ! ' � r A " o °w 0Li a Q 0 a Es: i n .`M t O y € '40'40 w -:� 'o o g _ .1 g p w " a6 Q m en Z • �� `—= ,. J o .. 8 'a= fib+ '$ J IL U a- O � 0S •�'afar:� � mom H o m o$ - oo", ' 06 f XE o_ O I a o Ndit, _ o =o S Q a =g a$N p J CCF (n �� a 'O dos w a 000 o1 gra W ao0azw m .. �. � .- = 'in �; g 88-6 3gp3h J n ■ - 9It:—.--....,= ra l a ; a;n gn "e Piz 0 � � � � 0 '�_ � `� iia : �i o 4 LL2 = am„ ° a° 1— g_ < U ti ! iIi w = g a ohs: I eL z 0 o $o x1opffi o 'i s € o Ir O o= a d $?_� wa g g 615 w E, mow; ai m ..� gas P:, 5E T. q 1.18—.-t..2,,1 � 6 o NmL a < " _S ` ieo ,S'i' h - pgorl: V q w w e-1 Y osaw " ob Ba ge -w: sos$ o q� o ' R g i § w o =g; E "P" a 400 I 6E 61r476:0! 8 X N' n w S==ewao!; s ! 885 e1g., 5 " oe g �= w g"Foo g2g ,T�" o go-Mg s L: S5 4 5-,p . d RSOe4i .T—i'; 28 tz-w ..6§°6'=� �u'�A , . s M 5. o ' a 1 S _ :your, OE 3 gz`"�� €p, l eve g:'0-c� ' p iggri gg p o �gw p , " 95 �'z-o o- s ''' %1°68z � �" a2sak =8 6 = z m e a� =s="$"z `' 6 _ -EL', 0io,o 8F3 6., �,owECo,o, s o 0 8 ' .m W a a"=sl&w€8ixeg AR 5 e9. =..$ <�6� n -'n Ea 6 oLLY n n p H- r o..p ._ _ MO! as: _- a" r!u!g- s 3! o ig ss s: $< v o b w 8. .Ely g = € gA"8d ,h: k w�a o�7-= ��w d z 5 8-:Wad a €�2`& CW 3 �$=$mac ;�Wa'a = 07�sG " � R "� 6 " ` 8' 5„ ao j1 € w 6 q�aa�?o 1 sw o�` 8r p ow= W "- z� � " - $�� a Y't o o 83 i��W' 0 9tfow n ¢ � :!-OPo � q e° Ve Ei"' s TmPg � sae d = ! i �LL g s "`" W` F € � �;2� T"o � a ;"§ � P 'ac i O� 3 3 6 $z '3 a ".,."m^ . " o _ " o _ " o _ wil 5 9 W N N IN W= '''gE s Ou_ 9 - §W Llin� w a 0 p E8 wWEw og ''' k' y =� N Eck bmW 381,6 ;x .i 2 ppb*1 E%,§ s �s}tJo W Yogfioaaa4`Eggo B'AaA W I ho8E.99'oSaa8 �d8�.<• • C o6fs �R - Y e!8A8 O '.g o "" T �o nm m" n W w I " 2:1P>a ' (----- Is v SL 3 S,lZAOS v QQCf man¢ =aw _ ... ,O6'Z6i `• ' m«T 00«�� .00« "moo os.ao'os� ,ec LL Zao 60 `` ' Pl. N.LS,IZ00N J o II V ,C6'101 1 ,CS IOL /J/1 n�LS.IZ-0ON M,LS.Ix.IXMI M.[S,IL-0ON o T W11sai _. S ^ 8 V�1R R�o "i u I oVo 1 s ,w501 I ,a0'sol I .aosD1 .00501 I f8 r �j F.LS,LilON 1 x.03.00000 M.LS.tLLON A../530.009 8 o _.__....._.___. 8 8 ,DD5o1 ,301.30 8 ,ao saL 'aO,SLI...-1 oOmL 8 IW 8 ,a-a0,c—�-I- ; , 4¢ c I O A.LS,[LOON u_ bof 0 3.LS.IZD««.L� o 0.0000N W MLSo1ZA0N o S I 8 n r �jIW'1 121 o - o 'n 3O'd.O,+{ — 1.-30'0 0l + SI'�w 2 .00501 ,00301 ..“.03SOL F<� .00001 N,LS(LOON w A.LS.LxOON W A.LS ILLION J u A.LS,Lz00N �' 8 Sa 8 8 o f a 8 p o8 a o - om o o=i 1 p l o 16 o R I J_f. tIn R 1_ 1J l L x 1_ yL n _o __�_ 50r I ;+ } 0p'Sp t-- -00'SOr- I 8'T :00'SD ON. --1-'-slzan1 +-o Eo Rai7+"s z[•�1, arT f'.L3.I 1-', 18 +_�Txcsuamr 7 O � R S 8 ' 8 Lm gni 8 f `" o 4'"w. 3 $ x ,A . X 00 SOL i 8 I ,00501 h n .00 SOI•011 ---n, 4Io R^ AUS01 1 a 0 8 000..3 L 0000 1 0.LS,L9.009 00[3.10000 SI t = M,LS,IZAON -� I n o q v a ppm op 1-..,3Od.01 .__. 5,1- 8 s 8 I,',10 81 .00501 --r30.soo sol 8 �I .00 SOL rR } o ....MOON o d A.LS,LLAON 1 1 0.1 00000 r A.LS.I0O010 I m o , 08 8 <� i n I- V 8 Oo SOI 8 I a 2 .00501 ; 2 ,os• c,D" 18 ,sz .si R ,00'soi 0' -7 8 A.LS.LL000 0.LS.lZ.000 I I M.LS,ILLION I 0.00 IZ00 Q 11.1 .__ _._ 4" J� Iv ^00'39 .00-f0 —/ I _ 0000 Q I" t I 00 SOL «SB \ A.....0ON ,,,,L00N 8.OLSS A,[S.t900N L- 00'001 M...,LOON I o Z ) OD �a l-mI1MM1 ,O[f6C 3,LS,[LOM 0 OW 300 n o Q Q N r AL'fSl 133X15 pNINNIMt- 0 31'3V S r f rJ f3'9l el.. LU o "01'« .01 OS SIC fin 3,0310003 I o .03 SOL I VJ .— 0 coi 8 J 01'OS ',- 010S .o1re_i_*.010s__.0ool „I a N,LS MOON o c W Z O zQ <w - ' Q 0 Z 0000... ......._. `E 5 8 �.� 3O.Sl 1-' > ,--.17..04... „..., Q g •8 -8 08 -8 8 8 ^ryssl.wLS,MOON CSV R f.- RnN _ y n n s") . mo 0r Z cV -110 2 8 8- 0 8- "c,«L--g=i- 8 ^mom R� e m WY Q CS LL re'f9l 3.00,01.00S 8.01'« 01'«" 1.01'« ,01 OS n 01,3! OOSK 01'09 a." .00'031 ! 4 3 8 J .00'SS0 x.00,61.000 OD m . ('_ j 40 R � QZd] 2 V > _ W < O aj 5 3 J 6 _1 0o E ., - 8 _ ,00 ., ., _ - - - Nnm _ a ^ ma gQ Q - U � h n r n m o r h R .; m e R 3 n `q' Q C7 1 n ^ R % f ? „ ff, n 5, R , ^ A n f 5 5 5 2 Iii Q Q Z sRN m n ' aR « „ s : AazY4A : Iai : " : : g8 'f°- § 32 - 88 8 88 '3 Q W < < 8 8 r o 8 8 8 S 8 o N 8 8 ' 8 n ^ 8 R y „ z '" 0 f, 'is aae abb „ Yr mm Na « b Nm $ ° e 1 f m2 Cr) ur o V $ S2 $ $ 8 8 8 8 $ 8 $ $ 8 $ 8 $ $ S g? S SSRS ; •L 7 7 S 9 9 73 9 y2 R r 2 2 - N ^ _ H ., 2 ., - r v m 2 t5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Z ., o o p 1, ., , ., o R 1411 F �" pp a g9�ij � jj j js f[3g2gi�{ hli W 0 80 $ �tE idE 3€fib o PI § ill'N iEELi 0 o o �i d z o X C Ea g nsi H gio�a 6 8 g g '-.n, RW3€zi w ocF $ a s € a=m g�z� W �a wzo o .goaa2�si�C I ygmFw� m &'„=gp gv 'a'iw e �z� '# € g a W �o�sg ons a Y oQagwo o � G $-4 : BC &..,, - gg22 g a„$a / . ,..8 ob1;1 d v; HMI 6, `� a �'8p N "s` w � i7�W cgs 80.'4)9 `> w w g B a& 1 8= 2 2e ` 2'g 22ag 22'A q! 16 ga 41-b'$ 0546 2 4¢o a z a ER -1 z 0 w- 1 nig guC . L=..a .A w F°”- 3€ rEwL2g .°P w Eg b o m ! < 4 G� v 0 : g08 % €2 oe a °agave:g k 3 'ir zr AI.g 8 § €2 g s 8 € is 8 ma an . s'o. ads =exp �_ a_o o� a :w ,.:r;L:2 g PA & ° U_ to -. ,/F- I- a� UJ ilri ..4.--i, iy= N ° gul E� a Q Z a Q. Erse � r Z g psW 'e Ea / oma W Z W 2 w 0 �_1■ �n O ,°po 1,2 8 gx U _ €W W23 g tl d v a N °- 8 :illeLLLk`�_•EI� -JE i 1 = gmip Ellis • ik a 8"- by �L U (A 0 �1-� \c. g w 'w° .Z � a z OD 1 moo �ar ,Low ° g�' <�. N Soo W mQa_ az W �, (4) 46- ��iir: �� 0. €m� Ji _, �g vEr. I 8E .° g o Qa d' C7 U a .wr 1I &'' N q a r52,ey§ J qt _ LL z 2 2 a _ " Lll W � ,i 5� °Y ° Q o X Ywm W W. -.2q,_pK �� a§. 6s Z ki, ,w W Y $ ? w :foo E. "gw ao:,W � sA�x wz 4a € W � 7",a o 2 a� ]ot r< o s d W 01P4 4 m <'� Wal R S " w w " 9 og� as g� ud"" a> A X El" 2 2 LES p g�$z € Sg 't o ;p°Fgo,: 2 F _3 4 ;fit w z S 3 ��€� so � �� OaE�g= 2 P r a = -a `s io 3 =atm c o82,w2°3g" ; -- €g 202 , 0 4 1 g go 2 . 6� " s 7 P=es= pup ' s� ggP "P' "U 1 o o . g e a ,g9 " w3aER aW 1 � o E<oe2V o"gQ i w m giT,6 62 i m o - a tE rg=n ps ° m "; y F� _ a ��w a m� 3 � wo '6 ' 24 ;,fig o 262,t' =_: ' €" 2s °E''4" o =2 w. W gW�p 5'23 o 5 .E°pz - Eo= N "o r a2w = IR-s, _< z - �� s ' ow r `g �" a r2 022 E _ e'F - „ a. 3'" o <b R €€o g �i e = w W w o 13 po - 4 e pg= g g o 4824 sE ° 4 egos4n2EsgE €a / / g , - 4,; 8a S< . diol L g= i g Xaa ;ZehA <w §oay<§24085s „ oF a � 8 9 @.' 8 -, u p w N18 '9`o 0 CL E z A N w u w 4 5kg g`-. i. w €REglfg/..,i1,2 V I In huu_,za S • a m 1g1g 111 = w Wnr o I s, m . 0 RM 8,,,N 'iiiiiiliggi W iq.•3 J �k a ooaaa Haag / =<LL68wo �aN nw¢ LO SSL 3.C1,1ZD5 3,il fL� Lei W n s a • .Os DEL 16i.,EAS .LS CIS 1-S010tlH1 ' .OG 3��LL cL _ -AI SO M.f 1..000 _ S ,01'0 .01'05 .010S ,Dl'K T I OL fS ,01'0 ,1055, LO R 5.a`9 3 8 I R' " i 30 A D €2 " X a _ o$a�Pn 7 7 9 - 8 - .00'50! 3 P‘§1i- e_ =a _ - . _ + c c o +S'L a- 00S W'St, 3,64.KO05 c- 0 0 2e� E 8 R .---- - ) 9 e Vin. ..._.._..----- `!-.mss. n\ w , .5'uc I-Zr6S---DTbs---.5+s---1-a--s--Drat J® m wI R o w \ ,i 8 (3A ow'3'0'd .0ff96E M,61,KAN ' n I 1 161,fSA05 . Fn ,0'501 �^ r,„,...4_2:12.0.."3.1'3.'M/S),09'f,[3.B1.K008 __ _ I "g oo.li 501 8 !Otl10tl111 335..... tlXNOIM q a w 4 '1 Ig'^ ll .00'011 M`fi I.KAN n .1 - .69., . L, . \G 1......_ D050 m'm----+-�. J .61.KA05 4 ».. _... .. /,per N.,Lf,fSOW ( to �u. r o h �R -y R 8 R .sz .Sz =.1 ` _.__._. n $ $I 3,61..005 1 3.64..005 - • 3.61,.00& 381.008 I , H 1 I ,0501 0501 I ; .OD SOI 3.,,„_..!1 I-II-» • a 0'501 d R is R b u o g 8 R w R n g g I 3....a. I 161,.005 3.61,5005 n 3.610501 m I .00'SOL 1 .00501 0501 r } m u"i , 501 I 30.51-.1 'o` 3'Od,DI�,Y..I -•,,..r.--.3.04111 e Ili �" En: 8 .:Z, I-; " 97 R - 7 R SS n m I . I 1a1,.m5S`T f 3.61..008 '" RRj 16,,.005 ,R '"" a 9 101,05005 Ii .00'501 I 1 .0501 =I0 ui I .0501 I 0 9 W o io .50'501 � � I�' q ^o n� � 'll R '. 1f��I 9 �"o 0 e n J" I ,0 i l l.3.61 s 1105 ( 16!,.1105 t 7" I� 4 161,.105 .• ..... ,1 o- �j.0050005..L 9_L .0 sol.- r+ 0501- ; .;;L:' -00501IT , 9Nw o J_-60'.'1__ �_a ,,r,' I -0.1 T 42 ' o R- T1 Ib Rdn R n - R ^I%= IR p - u _w . n 15" R w,"n1 7. n 1 0 „^ n IX R , 5. 05005 1 3,6,,05005 r 3.61,05005 I ..-3,,v, 9 " 161,.008 .00'501 _...i o,,,,.0501 .60'501 3'0.5 ; ,D0 SO, `.).L., a n -„o w g 3'0'd01 a-n.0 • a R g R g a i3 S R " IR § c 1 16',.005 ! 161..008 w I 161,.005 1 IL 181..0 S I <W .0'50l 30,51,_-1 .0050! _?.- I .50 001 w ,0'501 r .a of" So a"6 0l o 8 ' Ig, .5L 1,SL gl 3.61..006 1 161.05005 Ig (=t? �1 161,.005 .'391.SL QCl) 161.05005 I I -, .00'50! I ,00'501 1- `" , ,m.OL CL w - m ig 5. R w 8 1- °OOI O_ . S e " }, n - ni1$ In 1-m -I" ly Q .66'15 yt-' N /'KfO.amN �501.1.,a....., .50Lo Z0 SOMI It 1EAl F- / y' 11,-62 0610,'"'"12'`�Ly l L6.T 9fDL. 9.LLAN Lel. �fL 1 COW }, rn/ ,fiL 6LL N,LS.ILAN( t 81 Q 5,g 5555. 5555. 5555. Z Q0 i * E a W co � F_ c� ccs W o J ? w = � .._ Z W C7 _ g g R 8 - 8 8 N n _ 8 n R m ry R _ 8 z Q V JQap O H 18 « t taewwnS ; w ^ gym ; ; -I (n Q Ra ▪ a 5E 'E• . 5• xa " : A6 : - " h " " g8sa8888888 p_ YUCnOLLQ w § R , RS ARRRB :, « U 0 U U g < „ a '2 '88 ;, r 8 .- 3 14 8 8 81 ' ^ . tt t t f t t t: t f t 0J 0 r iCnEDI Lr g ' $ 's 'srv ° = m ° mnmSmream $ mg via00a08a " aa0 " W U U) J J u $ $ $ $ 888 « 8ggg $ 8888 $ 8 $ _ � � 9 � oQ > Q H O j R R « _ ± R r :, n ry n h „ _ " ., " _ n m Q < C7 1 5 u u u u u u u o „ u ' R = Q Q u � uuuuu a v O w w cn Q ,....e ,>. . w u�,�0� 1S3M SLSO-(65(6F2)xy SLSOL656F2»yW 1191HX33JYd5 N3d0 1,� Y ` 60131,wIdeN 1002>Lms">^uO yed..IIM OL99 @ E 8 2569 811991 93>one[uapmLp saLoyiu»epuoli 1S3M A I x _1--_■7_NI1.1i-iN■l0111133N10143i 30)13A 3NId U>0., skt3'g 3 ix I DNI' "NOlNOH'N'O ,i U V U U U U V O «««« 0 +I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I ouuu U mn.-'-mmmm up N�I�m.-FD00 r <<<<<< a Q f V C].—'-O O M.- Or +1+1+I+1+I ii Q Q N V r m�� jiQ O w NO��00 ce . l0 O = ZpNQT Yz a I- ~ Z'� wU'K ( Q r ';'Luz Q DKOEZz a w WW1 1.7 Q �a ZuoWz u 12-41:1:0E ZY Z j z wL9oanzg o wOa'I- o WLa„ 0 ozowa- 7 v) w w z�wm5� o W� m wOI-cc D Oi l9 za m a?Oa w zgzG�wv w aaaaZ a� � � �a `�> N ae,-,5,'-‘5,-E. S' , wwww 2- j 8.1- 000za0 Fn �U VUUV Z O O'O v29.�Z'z�?6wSz,4 wwwwwwYme, a aaaa OZ a � LL "o<,izza aaaawg80 1-6 Ln 0oi'2OFnit o0000013-1,C I— ZZZZY F„. 1111111cr e 11, J I 1 , I _r / r ____._____. ......- ansa owaaswiva L I pI 1 — ;': I 1 I i1 ' i 3 w Q L I c 0 x R 1 1 51 I I 8 A , 1 d I 1 g 1 I � I I it i I ii 1 $ 1 .- $ 1 � g . I 1 8 1 I v 1 8 1 a- I R F Z LykinsDave From: Scott Lepore <slepore@johnrwood.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:46 AM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Briarwood PUD Zoning Request Change Commissioner: I am writing to you today to express my objection to any changes regarding the Briarwood PUD, and specifically,the 15.97-acre parcel at Radio Road and Livingston Road that is zoned for a shopping center. I am vehemently opposed to any changes to that PUD,that would allow a non-conforming apartment complex with 320 units, and 21 units an acre of density. In reviewing the Briarwood PUD, I see nothing that would allow this to be built. Given the number of apartment complexes located within 3 miles of this area, that all have residences available to lease at this given time,this is a clear attempt by the potential developer to use the property for a use that is non-compliant and non-concurrent. If we continue to violate our Growth Management Plan, we will take a closer step to becoming Ft. Lauderdale. As an almost 30-year resident of Collier County I will be fighting this project head on. Radio Road is ill equipped to handle another major project of this density at this point, especially west of Santa Barbara. I am available to discuss further issues with you individually. Thank you for your time. Scott Lepore 634 Coldstream Court Naples, Florida 34104 239-250-2800 (Direct Line) scottlepore@comcast.net 1 ' _ < \ CO -tee:& / CD • gifs9 I- °=a& 2 3% ul TV 43103 $ \t-t-n.1\ CU 0 / § N MIe \ ° 2 ,— = 2 ' �m2 ; -_r- i t co , 2 � } n co ul Ill MI \ e \\i rg E1ti \ \ ' ( � a ] § � - tt 1 ® ` � .4 ( 0 tz' Er0 \ \ \ / - U .46 ] U \ o § { 3 \ \ \ 1-2 o \ { \ k \ — \ \ UI I e m ) { k \ ) ( E a tX \ E { 0 | § ; § | _ 0 ) \ k & A' / | } a \ ! / \ E \ to . § � . § ( / e a - 11 { { f k ( ° ) k gl _ E f | \ ' � ) 4 \ NI j § . { § i al . \ �11/0 e _( § \/ 2 \ 7 ] -o } ) � ` f ■ \ N �� U / r71 t Z ^ 0 < Eo a § ■ > a § t aii o § k ° t -5I & 11 . 2 E 73 G ; _ � a� /�.: J \ a:± ;22 2 _� T . , / ƒd - . .. . . \ 3 7 c R m a J . § : : . / LykinsDave From: Marlene Sherman <mwsherman@earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 4:09 PM To: LykinsDave Subject: Need for Sidewalks and street lights on County Barn Road Original Message From: Marlene Sherman [mailto:mwsherman@earthlink.net] Sent:Thursday,June 01, 2017 11:39 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Sidewalks and street lights for County Barn Road Commissioner Fiala: I attended the June 1st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission where the advertised hearing for PUD- PL2016001398 for 38 acre property on the east side of County Barn Road and south of the Seacrest school. The Neal Communities are seeking to create a new townhouse community similar to their Avalon Development on the corner of Davis Blvd and County Barn Road. Two persons from Glen Eagle Community spoke in regard for the need for infrastructure on County Barn Road (street lights and sidewalks) before more development is approved for property along Country Barn Road. However, I do not believe this matter will impede their PUD approval. I use County Barn Road regularly and I agree there needs to be street lighting. Is the need for street lights a matter that should first needs be brought to the attention of the County Commissioners before any action would be taken? Marlene Sherman Chairman, External Community Relations Committee Countryside Golf&County Club This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com \ Cr CD ,_ \\\ ,/ °2»a 11. 7 r cc) \ � » 0 • , = z 62trr R p ...../> VI ::: (,U2Lr \ / r.co I— �,r , — 11 1 , } -c,cn LID .—�, En• ��, . , f « 1 ( ) I \ a \ vi \# : ; F II \ ` \ 9 , ` \ / § ! ] 7 \ E ;Si. k / r.r "5 \ ) \ \ \ / \ \ 2 \ I0 \ iF,i � \ k 9 - ! $ ] U LE \ } \ E 8 13 \ o { G 2 n - ■ , \ $ W r2 co 41 } $ f E Ell \ � } \ � ( / ) } \ a k / i ! � o U \ t \ }_ 110. R, 0 4 � v ) \ k o15 \ MI W CO t - § | e . 3 f § )( al § / ) ) § \ H / ' a - k f J MI / \ \ 0. � � ` , > \ � j ; CU / ) / � ,k\ ; \ I \ I � � � r\ :\ , § t 2 > ® \ ,y °HU /\} ¢ ! °a :; 2 C P ^ . . . . 2� ) , , . • \ 2 ^ 2 6 CO 01 c G m z Z \ ! •-e2; \ NI 2 § ^=;m § In °e,a { 3 -=eG z Or \« `e—„ w tocn, . _ � , . } � � q $ `��w = v- CO \ k v, ,I IV C•1 / % \ 3 \ ) I ( ri $ I § . '0 E ' \ E - ) E ; E II 1 (j \ i . � \ 1 ik I '� /� \ ' I § i T _ § i \\ \ � \ E , c E ; ■ i - / g ( ! ƒ - 0 N a Illiii \ ) ! « t 7,1i - \ E § zr,- \,2 8 \ ) . i \ . 1 � \ ) / ( t E E . | o : » ; ° °. | _ if is \ j3 § ( 2 j I 0 « ° _ ; i \ I § [ g k r § ] I' § I CO o \ ) % \ 2 k ` % | ƒ - | 0 2 f i ! § ! !t co gi T" . \ k} Ira . 76 r a ucoo u, 0 , ) \ c H ,l'a rz ' o ■ ' E { = \ I | §fes _ § � } 21F - / ({ Ike § j\ c • � � oe / g I ` ` n t • I ! L} \k / I $ \ % oz � 2 ^ ~ > © » _ . . \ N- c a c R m @ 2 \ 2 Z a rn M 00 m tO m01- N VI ANN ,--1 o N N m N O r-1 L v�CO u1 .ZI- N n . orvx > 3 -Nm 2 O NO1tONO f VI O• -NN 0 • 1.--,1-.-coz CU •-QI,1NO1 ✓ N N LL r N m Fm-ON N 0 N W Vnr40F 0 a N Q 3 ,1,-03 N ---� �-- I- v c ✓• m.-.-N 0 E E N N0 1ONm 0 0 Cr to 0 to 7 m v E 0 a •e m 11 `aC -0 Of c 0 .-, d N 0 0 u O 4 m IL, 0 a` v u n v c m . C � N V2 E c E E Wc V O u o W ma. V m 0 wt 0 c . O J Yl Tel E n c u m 'm E v E c a E 0 o `w to co c W v° c ,. 7;,' ~ m G O a5 m a U a c c 43 E o m N v u / E m m by 0 E m v E w ° E 0 NE O O 8. v o E s 1 .0 0 `w Ol y l7 u v E i Cw .I = Z Y -moo E � i Y e, 0. 0 E E ' `m o e Tomv E_ m il c e u 2 o os1 V m m ° m • mm m E 7. N . ° u• 9 ta O L > m . " 12 S m t n u II" a d d x d w m z 111011 ›N z0 3 d o oY . m0. y y m ,m i 2 c� m '7;57,, .�. -. i O 4 CZ 2 .za. :. cuv.a ., N Cm I--- co 01 O x-- c- N c— N m In l4 CO V) LykinsDave From: Winner David <david.winner@volvo.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 2:47 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Wolf Creek Pud - Sobel Vanderbilt LLC Attachments: 201611231437.pdf Re: 7240 Acorn Way—Black Bear Ridge, Naples Mr. Saunders Please see the attached letter related to the above proposed changes to our community. I am getting extremely frustrated and angry that I purchased a lot, built a home and now a developer can change everything that was committed to me in writing. We will hold the county and everyone involved in making the decisions liable for damages caused if this action is allowed to go forward. Enough is enough. Regards, Dave David Winner Senior Vice President- Distribution Development Mack Trucks, Inc. Volvo Trucks NA Office: 336-393-2878 Mobile: 336-508-2279 Email: david.winnervolvo.com 1 • Daniel Smith DanielSmith@collierdov.net Mark Strain MarkStrain(a�colliergov.net Burt Saunders BurtSaunders(a?colliergov.net Summer Araque SummerBrownAraque@colliergov.net I am a resident of Black Bear Ridge a community located with the Wolf Creek Pud. It was • brought to our attention at the Neighborhood Informational Meeting held on Nov. 10th that a proposal has been submitted to reduce the preserve areas in parcel 3B/9 of the PUD. The developer, Sobel Vanderbilt LLC was represented by an their engineering company and legal counsel There were many concerned residents from the impacted surrounding communities in attendance at that neighborhood meeting. After much reluctance the representatives finally presented plans for the potential development which would require a reduction of the preserve to accommodate the number of units included. After reviewing the PUD Master Plan it appears that much of the preserve area they propose to remove is listed on the Plan as Wet Land. One argument they claim in their favor of reduction is that the existing communities have met the majority of preserve acreage as required by the PUD. Our developments were sensitive to to ever decreasing preserve areas in Collier County and did not decrease the preserves to the maximum this should not allow Sobel LLC to transfer that unused deduction allocated to our parcels and use it to their benefit. By decreasing the preserve they have increased the number of proposed units to 214 which is far above the allowed density per acre according to the PUD. According to Collier County Environmental Review Guide Book and Collier County Engineering and Natural Resources the Country requires the preserves to be interconnected to allow for wildlife corridors of travel. We know our area has many protected spices, such as Florida Panther which was documented with Florida Wildlife, Bears, Turtles, Snakes and Birds including Woodpeckers. Reduction in preserves will impact Florida wildlife and natural vegetation. Our native animals rely on the preserves for their existence. Wildlife and natural areas are quickly diminishing in Collier County and the entire concept for Naples is slowly being chipped away by increased development and loss of preserve areas. Small developments being squeezed" in small parcels of land have negatively affected all of Naples. Development can be a benefit for all residents if it is controlled and long term impacts are taking into consideration. Personally I feel that this benefit for residents is being pushed aside for the benefit of developers. I plan to stay involved regarding this matter and ask for any assistance you may provide regarding the procedure and status of this proposed reduction to the preserve. Respectf ly yours, .ter 7// •-)\r{s4; L\_)ipeuvv� � 7240 Acorn Way, Naples FL 34119 David�-'E. Winner Melisa J. Winn LykinsDave From: faye.collettsutton@louisville.edu Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 7:53 PM To: LykinsDave Subject: FW: Application to Reduce Preserve on Property Located on Pristine Drive, Naples Fl. Attachments: Preserve Letter From Homeowners 12.doc; PETITION AGAINST PRESERVE.doc Dave: I don't know if Bev sent you a bcc but I know she meant to Faye DR. FAYE SUTTON Professor Emerita 7311 Acorn Way Naples, FL 34119 239-405-5199 AMERICAN PROUD From: Beverly Smith [mailto:bevsmith116@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 3:29 PM To: Burt Saunders<burtsaundersforcollier@gmail.com>; MarkStrain@colliergov.net; SummerBrownAraque@colliergov.net Cc:Terrie Abrams<TERRIE.ABRAMS@GMAIL.COM>; Mike Fuchs<flguy55@gmail.com>; Rob Nossen <TheNossens@aol.com>; marc alien <mallencny@yahoo.com>; Faye Collett-Sutton <faye.collettsutton@Iouisville.edu> Subject:Application to Reduce Preserve on Property Located on Pristine Drive, Naples Fl. We respectfully object to any reduction in preserve by Developer, Sobel Vanderbilt LLC in proposed development to be known as Vanderbilt Preserve. This property falls in the zoning of Wolf Creek PUD. A petition of 155 signatures has been submitted on behalf of the residents of Black Bear Ridge, a 100 home community located in the Wolf Creek PUD. Along with this petition we have 151 letters submitted on behalf of the residents of Black Bear Ridge detailing our objection to the reduction of preserve. Attached please find a copy of the petition and the letter submitted. Originals have been delivered to the office of Daniel Smith on December 19, 2016 Should you require any additional information or would like to discuss this in more detail please do not hesitate to contact the following: Beverly Smith bevsmith116@gmail.com Terrie Abrams terrie.abrams@gmail.com Marc Allen 1 r `li mallenny@gmail.com 2 Daniel Smith DanielSmithCa�colliergov.net Mark Strain MarkStrain(c�colliergov.net Burt Saunders BurtSaundersa,colliergov.net Summer Araque SummerBrownAraque aa,colliergov.net I am a resident of Black Bear Ridge a community located with the Wolf Creek Pud. It was brought to our attention at the Neighborhood Informational Meeting held on Nov. 10th that a proposal has been submitted to reduce the preserve areas in parcel 3819 of the PUD. The developer, Sobel Vanderbilt LLC was represented by an their engineering company and legal counsel. There were many concerned residents from the impacted surrounding communities in attendance at that neighborhood meeting. After much reluctance the representatives finally presented plans for the potential development which would require a reduction of the preserve to accommodate the number of units included. After reviewing the PUD Master Plan it appears that much of the preserve area they propose to remove is listed on the Plan as Wet Land. One argument they claim in their favor of reduction is that the existing communities have met the majority of preserve acreage as required by the PUD. Our developments were sensitive to the ever decreasing preserve areas in Collier County and did not decrease the preserves to the maximum this should not allow Sobel LLC to transfer that unused deduction allocated to our parcels and use it to their benefit. By decreasing the preserve they have increased the number of proposed units to 214 which is far above the allowed density per acre according to the PUD. According to Collier County Environmental Review Guide Book and Collier County Engineering and Natural Resources the Country requires the preserves to be interconnected to allow for wildlife corridors of travel. We know our area has many protected species, such as Florida Panther which was documented with Florida Wildlife, Bears, Turtles, Snakes and Birds including Woodpeckers. Reduction in preserves will impact Florida wildlife and natural vegetation. Our native animals rely on the preserves for their existence. Wildlife and natural areas are quickly diminishing in Collier County and the entire concept for Naples is slowly being chipped away by increased development and loss of preserve areas. Small developments being `squeezed" in small parcels of land have negatively affected all of Naples. Development can be a benefit for all residents if it is controlled and long term impacts are taken into consideration. Personally I feel that this benefit for residents is being pushed aside for the benefit of developers. I plan to stay involved regarding this matter and ask for any assistance you may provide regarding the procedure and status of this proposed reduction to the preserve. Respectfully yours, Beverly R Smith Signature Beverly R Smith 7278 Address Acorn Way Print Name PETITION AGAINST REDUCTION OF PRESERVE VANDERBILT PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "VANDERBILT PRESERVE" PARCEL 3B & 9 OF THE WOLF CREEK PUD OWNED BY DEVELOPER SOBEL VANDERBILT LLC. THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS REJECT THE PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE PRESERVE AREA BASED ON THE DISRUPTION TO PROTECTED WILDLIFE AND NATIVE VEGETATION. WILDLIFE AND NATURAL AREAS ARE QUICKLY DIMINISHING IN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE ENTIRE CONCEPT FOR NAPLES IS SLOWLY BEING CHIPPED AWAY BY INCREASED DEVELOPMENT AND LOSS OF PRESERVE AREAS. SMALL DEVELOPMENTS BEING "SQUEEZED" IN SMALL PARCELS OF LAND HAVE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED ALL OF NAPLES. DEVELOPMENT CAN BE A BENEFIT FOR ALL RESIDENTS IF IT IS CONTROLLED AND LONG TERM IMPACTS ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION. PERSONALLY I FEEL THAT THIS BENEFIT FOR RESIDENTS IS BEING PUSHED ASIDE FOR THE BENEFIT OF DEVELOPERS. ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY LykinsDave From: StrainMark Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 4:10 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Background for Wolf Creek PUD Hi Burt. Welcome back! I noticed you have received some correspondence regarding the Wolf Creek PUD from members of the public objecting to the change proposed. The change is considered an "insubstantial change" and was originally scheduled to go to my office, but because of my office's ordinance requirement to elevate those actions that have a "heightened public concern", I had to move this to the CCPC. To give you some background,the change in this PDI (Planned Unit Development Insubstantial change) is to reduce the preserve areas in the PUD in one area, because other areas of the PUD have exceeded preserve requirements. The result is that the PUD is required to have a minimum amount of preserve and with the other areas exceeding the minimum planned preservation acreage,the developer of the remaining parcel wishes to reduce the preserve within that area so the minimum is maintained and not exceeded overall. No density is being added to the PUD,the change is to amend the master plan to show the relocation of preserve areas. I have attached the original master plan with the area in question in a red circle. Submittal 1 - Exhibit A Master... I have attached the new requested plan with the same area in red circled. a Submittal 3-Wolf Creek RPUD... Here is the narrative prepared by the applicant (Bruce Anderson) explaining the changes: ria Submittal 2-Wolf Creek PUD P... Earlier today an email objecting to this project was sent to your office and with it were attachments, one was labeled as a petition. I thought the information I attached might help to explain what is going on in case you are called. The PDI goes now to the CCPC (date not set yet) and unless appealed to the BCC, is a final decision at the CCPC. Thanks, 1 Ma rk., 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. 2 Wolf Creek RPUD Insubstantial Change to a PUD Project Narrative July 18,2016 The Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit Development RPUD was approved May 14,2013,as Ordinance 13- 37(most recent PUDA). The RPUD Ord. 13-37 was an amendment to the previously amended Ord.09-34 and Ord. 07-46 Wolf Creek RPUD. The RPUD Ord. 07-46 as approved May 22, 2007, included 168 acres of residential parcels for maximum 671 dwelling units. The RPUD Ord. 13-37 amendment increased the RPUD area to 189 acres by adding approximately 21 acres of adjacent lands and increasing the maximum dwelling units to 754 units. The minimum natural habitat preserve area increased from 32.32 acres to 34.26 acres. This RPUD is consistent with the Future Land Use Element(FLUE),particularly Policy 5.4 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4. This development is a single-family residential use compatible with the surrounding uses in this RPUD and adjacent residentially zoned properties. The residential communities within this RPUD are interconnected by the recently constructed Pristine Drive and Wolfe Road,providing an internal access and loop road from the residential entrances to the adjacent collector roads Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road. A separate access road has been permitted and is currently being constructed to connect the Island Walk PUD to Pristine Drive. This access road is partially on this property within a dedicated access and drainage easement. Sidewalks are being provided on both sides of the internal streets of this development with connection to Pristine Drive sidewalks. The purpose of this RPUD Insubstantial Change application is to amend the RPUD Master Plan to provide a new RPUD Preserve Master Plan exhibit showing the proposed location and acreage of preserve within Parcels 3B and 9, and the total documented acreage for all preserves within the RPUD boundary. The most recent PUDA, Ord. 13-37 includes two Master Plans, Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1" that graphically show the preserve areas but do not clearly identify their acreages. Exhibit"A"shows the original Wolf Creek RPUD Ord.07-46 parcels(Parcels 1 through 9)including the preserve locations,with no individual acreages listed. Exhibit"A-1"as provided in Ord. 13-37 shows only parcels 1A, 1B,2A,2B and 3A;all other parcels were left unchanged. Preserve locations are shown on Parcels 1A,2A and 3A and approximate areas are listed at the bottom of the exhibit. The total approximate area as listed is+/- 16.79 acres. The actual area provided per Plat Book recordings is 16.41 acres. The revised RPUD Preserve Master Plan, Exhibit "P" identifies the total 34.26 acres minimum required preserve area and the individual preserve acreages. The plan also shows a reduction to the preserve area on Parcels 3B and 9(this preserve area was shown graphically on Exhibit"A",but no acreage listed). There are no changes proposed to preserve areas and locations as previously approved on Parcels 1A,2A,3A,4,6,7 and 8, as identified on Exhibit"A"and"A-1". Exhibit "P" identifies the total documented 34.26 acres minimum required preserve area. Each preserve acreage was taken from the recorded Plats of the Black Bear Ridge and Raffia Preserve developments. The Falls of Portofino preserve is identified on the SDP-2005-AR-7064 and the Conservation Easement as recorded in Official Records Book 3973, Pages 2911-2927 of the public records of Collier County. The remaining minimum native vegetation preserve area is identified as 3.06 acres and proposed on Parcel 9 of the RPUD. The total preserve areas are tabulated on the Preserve Master Plan identifying the total 34.26 acres provided. The proposed lakes on Parcel 3B and Parcel 9 are rotated to be consistent with the proposed development order application being processed simultaneously with this PDI application. There are no changes proposed to the PUD document text and there are no changes proposed to lands owned by others. All other parcels are shaded gray and noted"to remain as approved by Ordinance 13-37, 07-46 and 09-34". K:\201 S\15-0106-The Falls of Portofino\Correspondences\Documents\PDI(Wolf Creek PUD)-Submittal 2\Wolf Creek PUD Project Narrative-Revised.doc 1 lL6l—•3380 dloM. g S yyI b ' 8 Q Z � • Q o E, mJag 4 — — fr0. (l56-80 0NVA31006 -n,. t_ , , Ficj i 3" d 4 I W Q 3N u W ow YE Imo° -3 4 1r w I x ¢Q JQ� a �F: s �I LL a 8 - S 14%1 I8 PG H 8 £E€ E-1 I 2 k N 0i 1 I o w 8 .1 j: j 11 a o' 110thfl PAos aN�w=g w w -wok §=di =wg-i, '1 F 'i �n°ausnc3�, 3 m ° 's,11;4 ;slwiSx�>1�d-=-=2 C w I ! W11100.13 SIM, ssaa B & I I andw00....,..,, "7=7=-- erg 1I �\�\.\ I f! u \`.� s�` e I 7/ lolil a \�!\ $. < 3 \`6\� ill i IT- - - \�\ m \,.\` ——— 511i10 3NLLSRId 03S0dONd i i i Eg� \�\\\ c ® I �, ��\r n AA's \\\ $' I & ^ s I g 266; E \\�\ I w € 5 € ME lir fIlgz fi \\ E "'s i s g8 s J h. ^+ \ 2! of i. ,..,'.. ‘ NI -\\,--;\\\:\\ - \\ i I J--- F I IV\ ‘-- El w.1 \\\ Inuunw` ULanwwoo mu+avis3aauv°) W %' andna°xnm almsi p '' anannvm - 2 3'5 W 3 U2 O 'I $w im ',It, 0 g g it E 8 l' `----' i EU TTT N 8 `a l£KE 1J'NOIVi1 VO08 1181HX31Vld AS +� oil',311f1S NOI1VOOl1V 3AN3S3Hd 9 0 ■ �1! ! "210 2131N30 3A11f103X3'MN 48EZ ........ a c . w o 1111'f�� 011'1�182j3ONVn'1380S ;3 " 1 N 'a = o - ill anda)133210 dIOM € gg1 1 OPRBEq 4 �g 1 E W Q on ,'a 8 a ; �� 22 am 8 m � � �d n N?eV GG mG n .II.II.Y. do da 3rvolsw�ne F— w • II.II.R.II.N.N.il.11.11•ll.l II.X 11.1�1.11.11.¢rl� _ — 1 c.,,,..:, 77 , I ,,s I I I \ o w l ---' n a g3 n �v` v 5' a n..l.nilnln.�mml.nri■o \ w \\ ` g A Y as < ma I I.luu.o.¢.u....n ¢ 1 `\\\ � ga s3notl aos — \�\ .�\... .a3rv1d Ir ■ 1 i \ sF 1iTiiii\b LL W \ \ \\ \ -o \ \. a R LL 4 Q > \� �� \ d rco ■ g \\\..• m K `j¢ 5" 3 ' 1p35__ \\\'.\\ \\`.. N 3 I ¢m \\\\\\ \ � \ .II.II�II.II. .XT `\ / /\ISI AI w0OrlM 11 0.1511tl9 8 ♦1 and NitlM arvtlKi ltlo 1 w 88 CAn E S w E M'' .808 g„ �� € qua °1i� a i I s _ € a II.II.II.N .II.II.¢.II.II.II.II I. . II.I.I,.II.I.II.\.�.�+ "N andry tlMarvtl,=1 '" CO a 9 - L. 1g a d,, CC CC 0 ✓i8`� s,x„y 0 a A 0 0 Y ✓ gg m ¢m€" �m€d€ of .n.11m� W walla e� [ aag Al 11 0 raG rar rdr r8r d u l'or a asr 2 r1r r5.r a `‘,8.4,h o °o a and H�vmarvtlisi J gli NH and ¢fl NNH LLp Qd$ O Q K�¢n NH >�g 3 LykinsDave From: Mr. Kilroy <kilroyshere@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 9:25 AM To: SaundersBurt; StrainMark; donnafiala@colliergov.net; SchmidtCorby; McDanielBill; BosiMichael; andysolis@colliergove.net; TaylorPenny Subject: RE: Growth Management Plan Amendment Application, Vanderbilt Beach Rd RE: Growth Management Plan Amendment Application, Vanderbilt Beach Rd Road/Collier Blvd Commercial Sub district. Folios: 25525600520, 25525600546, 25525600562, 25525600588, 25525600041, 25525600067, 25525600083, 25525600096 Public Hearing: April 11, 2017, Property: Carolina Villages aka Vanderbilt Commons To County Commissioners, Zoning & "Planning:" I live in Black Bear Ridge year-round. It's my Homestead. My wife works for NCH. I own and operate a local business. We pay taxes. We vote here. Vanderbilt Commons, adjacent to Black Bear Ridge, if granted this application, may profoundly affect traffic congestion, quality of life, home values and safety at our front door. WE PURCHASED OUR BLACK BEAR RIDGE HOMES BASED on living adjacent to (former) Carolina Commons, an approved 150,000 sf PUD of low density housing and retail. ACCESS/EGRESS DEDICATED RIGHT TURN LANE: Adjacent to us is 85,000 sf Mission Hills Center. They have 2 dedicated right turn in/out access/egress lanes into their parking lots to accommodate the traffic they generate. Vanderbilt Commons if granted this application will be at least 235% larger than Mission Hills Center. So ought Vanderbilt Commons have such a dedicated lane off Vanderbilt and into their own parking lot to handle the traffic they generate. ALL OTHER NEARBY SHOPPING CENTERS: Immokalee & Collier and 3 Centers at Airport & Vanderbilt, have dedicated right turn in/out access/egress lanes into their own parking lots. VANDERBILT COMMONS DEVELOPERS, PRIOR TO GETTING APPROVAL TO INCREASE BUILDABLE FOOTAGE chose to build a 95,500 sf mini storage facility under the original "Planned" PUD permitting 150,000 sf total built on 14.492 acres. They took a real estate risk and now are looking to profit further with this risky application to create another high traffic strip mall for more drive-thrus and fast food burger joints. IF THIS DEVELOPER IS UNWILLING TO DEVELOP THE REMANING 55,500 SF under the approved "Plan" they purchased the parcel under, other developers will be ready willing and able to procure suitable to County and neighbor friendly users. WE OUGHT NOT BE FORCED TO BEAR ONEROUS COSTS: We're under cost sharing agreements based on original "Plans" that could if application is granted, force Black Bear home owners to disproportionately pay expensive road/traffic modifications caused by this approval. WE DO NOT WANT THE RISK that Vanderbilt Beach Rd may become, a congested and dangerous Collier County traffic jam putting our home value and safety at risk. WE FEAR OUR QUALITY OF LIFE "Planned" for will be made poorer if this application is granted. Respectfully, Steve Rosenberg 7210 Acorn Way Naples, FL 34119 kilroyshere@hotmail.com 2 LykinsDave From: Wendy J <wendyroseryt@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 9:29 AM To: SaundersBurt; StrainMark; donnafiala@colliergov.net; SchmidtCorby; McDanielBill; BosiMichael; andysolis@colliergove.net; TaylorPenny Subject: Growth Management Plan Amendment Application, Vanderbilt Commons RE: Growth Management Plan Amendment Application, Vanderbilt Commons Road/Collier Blvd Commercial Sub district. Folios: 25525600520, 25525600546, 25525600562, 25525600588, 25525600041, 25525600067, 25525600083, 25525600096 Public Hearing: April 11, 2017 Property: Carolina Villages aka Vanderbilt Commons To County Commissioners, Zoning & Planning: I am a year round Black Bear Ridge resident, home owner and I work for NCH. I'm very concerned the Vanderbilt Commons application for expansion will create major traffic congestion and safety risks on the public Buckstone and Pristine Drives which are the only entry to our front door. I believe Vanderbilt Commons ought be required to build a dedicated right turn in/right turn out access/egress at the East/West midpoint of their property into their own parking lots off Vanderbilt Rd. Vanderbilt Commons will generate tremendous traffic. As such they ought bear the majority of space, road traffic and cost burdens to accommodate it...not their neighbors in Black Bear Ridge. NOTE: Mission Hills Shopping Center is an 85,000 sf mall adjacent to Black Bear Ridge on the corner of Vanderbilt and Collier. There are 2 such dedicated right turn in/right turn out access/egress lanes (1 on Collier and 1 on Vanderbilt) into the Center's own parking lots, mitigating traffic on abutting Mission Hills and Buckstone Dr. Vanderbilt Commons application for 50,000 more sf, if granted would make it more than 235%% larger in terms of leasable sf and associated traffic than adjacent Mission Hills Center. Additionally, Vanderbilt Commons application seems to not include 25% of their buildable space on their NE quadrant not included in this application. If a later application is made to develop that NE quadrant, Mission Hills would far exceed 200,000+ sf. NOTE: All other nearby shopping centers have these same dedicated right turn in/outs like Mission Hills Center does. Please see: Pebblebrooke Center at Immokalee & Collier and, all 3 shopping centers at Vanderbilt & Airport (Shoppes at Vanderbilt, Venetian Plaza and the Publix Naples Walk Center). Respectfully, Wendy Rosenberg 7210 Acorn Way Naples, FL 34119 wendyroseryt@hotmail.com 2 LykinsDave From: Terrie Abrams <terrie.abrams@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:21 AM To: SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; McDanielBill; SolisAndrew; TaylorPenny; StrainMark; SchmidtCorby; BosiMichael; SmithDaniel Subject: Black Bear Ridge Response to Growth Management Plan Amendment Application Attachments: Scan.pdf 1.pdf; ATT00001.txt; Scan.pdf 2.pdf; ATT00002.txt; Scan.pdf 3.pdf; ATT00003.txt; Scan.pdf 4.pdf RE: Growth Management Plan Amendment Application Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Blvd Commercial Sub-district Folio Numbers: 25525600520,25525600546,25525600562,25525600588, 25525600041,25525600067, 25525600083, 25525600096 Please find attached the signatures representing 70%of property owned in Black Black Ridge supporting the 3 attached letters of concern regarding the Vanderbilt Commons Growth Management Plan Amendment to be heard on April 11.2017. We urge you to read and fully understand the situation surrounding the communities located near Collier Blvd and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Sent from my iPad Terrie 630.244.4800 1 To: Collier County Commissioners March 22, 2017 Re: Growth Management Plan Amendment Application PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Blvd Commercial sson H Ils'c t CarolinaNanderbilt Commons expansion Public Hearing:April 11, 2017 Commissioners, As residents of Black Bear Ridge, who are immediatelyaffect Med p the current proposal and the "to follow" CarolinaNanderb Commons Commissioners, to please step back the County Com amendment , we would ask you, plan for the area, if and consider the "whole" picture. We to be maintained, and we need resolution quality of life and property values are to not be in of the outdated inequitable cost sharing agreement that appears conformitywith Florida State statute and Collier County municipal trpfflcode regarding payments upon proportion basing proportionate fair share Planned development with an eye toward augmenting local neighborhood rvices and enhancing quality of life in a manner consistent withtheplanningwith a continued needs and surroundings is desirable. Long range and other considerations is consideration of ever changing necessary. With regards to the Mission Hills CPUD and expansion was for moderately the adjacent Wolf Creek RPUD, the original plan at inception ision Hills commercial upscale residential communities to be served by district. This was augmented with the addition of the d thee current Hills expansion tpbea Vanderbilt district which was the original Carolina Commons a Commons. The plan according to the original ordinance was: "Carolina Village Mixed Use PUD is intendedtoto tocre worteea pedestrian- friendly ed pPt haft and friendly atmosphere that encourages area residents on-site workers to walk to other services, such as having lunch within the project." The Carolina Village expansion district was approved as a mixed use PUD and was to act as a buffer between the adjacent residential district and the Mission Hills commercial district. abuts the As residents of Black Bear Ridge, which immediately development in Vanderbilt Commons development, we welcome and favor keeping with this original plan. It seems, however, in recent years, that there has for dda eviation elopment has the original planned approach and that"de rigueur du jour" n which has resulted become a patchwork, cut and paste piecemeal methodology in a degradation of quality of life in the area due inparticular buden potentially to a marked increase in traffic congestion and also an undue financial being placed upon Black Bear Ridge landowners.This evidenced by the following: A) Pristine Drive Cost Sharing Agreement 2004 based upon acreage not traffic: BBR proportion 30% Carolina Commons 9.5% B) Mission Hills/BuckstoneC ercentage threet Sharing eparties t based upon assignedp BBR 25% C) Pristine Drive Cost Sharing Agreement was for the ere struction ly upscafof a two lane road to serve specifically thre n residential communities to constructing a no mention of this agreement to apply road to serve additional traffic from: 1) CarolinaNanderbilt Commons MPUD 2) Mederos property added in 2007 with pending development as Vanderbilt Reserve with proposed 200+dwelling units 3) Addition of Scenic Woods parcel 4)Addition of portion of Palermo Cove PUD to Wolf Creek PUD 5) The "tacking on" of traffic from Palermo Cove PUD to Pristine Drive and Wolf Road 6) Increased traffic due to shunting via"private" connector roads in Vanderbilt Commons and Sonoma Oaks 7) Failure of the Immokalee Road corridor with traffic shunted to Collier and Vanderbilt Beach Blvds and through Wolf Creek PUD via the Wolf Rd/Pristine Drive and Mission Hills/Buckstone loop roads and internal "required" connectors. ro osing to require is `fair share" N g. - It appears that the county proposing payments for necessary road improvements to be based upon oesappear to conform to current the 2004 CSA, which h ch is bad upon traffic generated, Florida State policy, thus resulting in an inordinate burden to BBR landowners County "Traffic" anticipates signalization at Pristine and Vanderbilt will be triggered with a projected cost of$1.1M resulting in an obligation to BBR homeowners ofionate 0,000 00 under the CSA, if enforced. This is not a p P share". D) County administrative approval of—95K square foot indoor "similar" storage facility at Carolina Commons, being deemed E) Resultant"need"for Vanderbilt Commons devellopbuild out his eer tortya requests additional square footage two thirds of the allowable square footage for VC MPUD was utilized in the storage facility F) Current VC proposal to add 50K square feet leaable slocatiopace n of without consideration of types of businesses businesses and effect upon adjacent property owners and neighborhood G) Pending Vanderbilt Reserve proposalunitsf dedicated preserve to be utilized for additional dwelling H) "Failure" of the Falls at Portofino development I) Current traffic congestion such that: Exiting BBR onto Vanderbilt Beach Rd frequently requires an extended wait during peak periods Morning traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Rd is frequently backed up such that several light changes are required to pass through the traffic lights at the Vineyards and Oaks intersections During afternoon peak times it is not unusual for eastward going traffic on Vanderbilt turning northward on Collier is backed up westward of the stacking lane for left turn onto Buckstone Dr. It is not unusual to have 8 cars of more stacked times, while e there e left turn lane onto Buckstone during peak may be one or two cars sitting in the from Buckstn one n from an eastward turn onto Vanderbilt There are frequent near accidents at the exit of Mission d when Hills onto Buckstone which may be e Vanderbilt Way is open and there is increased traffic County traffic planners have required developers e sto at Cat ucta/ Vanderbilt Commons and SonomaOo loop roads of ns private "connector" roads fission Hills/tween the Buckstone one Dr. The Wolf Rd/Pristine Dr and idea was for these to: bypassing traffic through the neighborhood byp g the CollierNanderbilt Beach intersection This design results in: increased traffic and congestion degrading neighborhood quality of life and creating a potentially dangerous intersection where Mission Hills western exit shunts to Vanderbilt Way With Vanderbilt Way running through the middle of Carolina/Vanderbilt Commons, the end result is a racetrack separating two strip malls, not a pedestrian friendly environment Outside county road traffic shunted into the neighborhood with the neighborhood developments being "stuck"with the costs of road improvements due to the CSA We respectfully request that you: Consider the whole and stick to the original plan - review the development plans for the area as a whole Address the current traffic issues that exist before approving things that may exacerbate them "Fix"the current cost sharing agreement-this was discussed at the County Planning Commission hearing of February 16, 2017 and was referred to by the County Attorney Mr. Kaltzkow as alease refer to the can of worms that needed to be fixed - p minutes of that meeting. Thank you, To: COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mr. Burt Saunders, CC District 3 cc: Mark Strain, Hearing Examiner& • •llCo '-r•o -t Planning Commissioner, Chair b rt . .n•- rby Schmidt, Principal Planner Ms DonnaFiala, CC District 1 Planning/Zoning Division donnafiiala@cotliergov,net Michael Rosi, Director, Zoning Mr. William McDaniel, Jr. CC District 5 Division billmcdaniel@colliergov,net Mr.Andrew Solis, CC District 2 andysolisC�corgove.net Ms. Penny Taylor, CC District 4 •enn •r@c•Ili-r•ov.net RE: Growth Management Plan Amendment Application Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict Folio Numbers: 2552 0067 25525600083 255256000962'25525600588, 25525600041,2552560 , Public Hearing: April 11, 2017 Property: Carolina Villages aka Vanderbilt Commons My name is Terrie Abrams and I live in Naples as a full time resident. I have been coming to Naples for 40 years so didn't have to think to hard where to retire. I knew Naples was well planned out to include nature and services for residents and purposeful development located and directed to enhance lifestyle. I am here today to articulate what is happening to our little piece of paradise that may not be obvious to decision makers. I purchased my home for the location and price point happy the intent of the undeveloped area was going to provide services to the surrounding areas that would complement my quality of life. I am looking forward to success of the development but not at the expense of my community. Here is what is going on and it can't be looked at in piecemeal or the wrong decisions for the residents of Naples will be made. Today is the cusp of a serious situation that must be addressed in totality. Vanderbilt Commons/Vanderbilt Preserve/ Sonoma Hills all impact immediate surrounding residential communities. Here are the pieces to the puzzle that must fit together or this will be a shining example of how Naples is losing its balance between residential quality of life (safety/property values/nature and happiness). - There is a CSA agreement between of the properties of Wolf Creek PUD-Carolina Commons/Vanderbilt Commons Parcel that although is a private contract it must be considered as it clearly defines how the land was to be developed and the relationship between the parcels. And, most important the county has already taken ownership of the agreement by accommodation of traffic not part of the agreement and therefore changing the intentions of the CSA. The CSA was a requirement of Collier County years ago and as stated by Mr. Klatzkow it has played out differently than intended to the detriment of citizens. Black Bear owners were aware of the CSA intent and felt comfortable it was there to support proper development of the immediate area. Here are the different facets of the CSA o Protection of preserves o Types of businesses that would support the community o Define the density of the area which in turn protects the preserves and supports the lifestyle of the surrounding communities defined as 3 moderately upscale communities. o Defines if those 3 moderately upscale communities generate excessive traffic how traffic flow improvements would be paid. - Mission Hills which includes restaurants/fast food drive thru/grocery store! medical/ misc. Retail has sufficient parking and is well buffered with preserves and streets from immediate residential property and channels traffic away from residents. - Vanderbilt Commons under discussion today directly borders residential property on two sides with no or little buffer making it critical the right retail usages are allowed by location within the development. If not there will be unsolvable traffic and safety issues and degradation to quality of life that can only be viewed as preference for development over residents. Once again is the county looking at this parcel's requests and impact on traffic in piecemeal and will require traffic studies only when it is too late? The intent of the property was to support 3 moderate upscale communities with services that were pedestrian friendly. Not fast foods drive thru and businesses not compatible to residential communities directly bordering the property. The developer chose to use square footage for a Storage Unit which by no means enhances the lifestyle of residents. Just because technically the county can grant plan changes ... should they an inch at a time until the genie can't be put back in the bottle. - The traffic issues imploding around us is not driven by the residents of our immediate area but by traffic from desperate drivers on lmmokalee and Collier that are using our residential area to bypass traffic . Moving the issues into a residential area at the safety of residents and destroying quality of life is not the correct solution. And then expecting t residents to pay for something that was not intended is unconscionable. Traffic studies indicate the immediate residential communities are not creating the traffic. This is problem for Collier County Planning to OWN. You are asked to look at this area through the eyes of the residents and in totality. Developers should not be granted special privilege at the expense of residents of Naples. Nor should the county ask residents to bear the burden of unsolved planning problems. On the other hand residents should not stand in the way of well thought out and refined planned progress. Residents drive the need for development and astute planning. Thank you. a ri March 21, 2017 To: COLLIER COUNTY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mr. Burt Saunders, CC District 3 cc: Mark Strain, Hearing Examiner& burtsaunders@colliergov.net Planning Commissioner, Chair Ms Donna Fiala, CC District 1 markstrain@coiliergov.net donnafiala@colliergov.net Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Mr. William McDaniel, Jr. CC District 5 corbyschmidt@coiliergov.net billmcdaniel@colliergov.net Michael Bosi, Director Zoning Div. Mr. Andrew Solis, CC District 2 michaelbosi@colliergov.net andysolis@colliergove.net Ms. Penny Taylor, CC District 4 pen nytaylor @ coil iergov.net RE: Growth Management Plan Amendment Application Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict Folio Numbers: 25525600520,25525600546,25525600562,25525600588, 25525600041,25525600067,25525600083, 25525600096 Public Hearing: April 11, 2017 Property: Carolina Villages aka Vanderbilt Commons As a full time resident of the community of Black Bear Ridge located in the Wolf Creek RPUD this letter is submitted to the County Commissioners for the purpose of stating concerns regarding the above referenced Application. These concerns are directed toward the changes that will result from within the property as outlined in the application. This change will have an affect on life style within all the adjoining residential communities and we ask that the County Commissioners consider the negative implications that will occur. 1. Traffic Impact The addition of 50,000 sq. ft. of office/retail usage will have a direct impact on traffic within the connecting loop roads that encompass Black Bear Ridge both east and west. Entrance availability to our community is directly from these connecting loop roads. Mission Hills/Buckstone Drive on east side and Wolf Rd/Pristine Drive on west side are both considered a traffic reconfiguration by the County in order to avoid the signalization at 951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Traffic for the Vanderbilt Commons Mall will only increase the usage of these loop roads. What must be considered in the analysis of total impact is the additional vehicle usage on these loop roads as the two undeveloped residential communities on Wolf Rd and Pristine build out. Vehicular traffic exiting the new Vanderbilt Commons and existing Mission Hills Complex will intersect on Buckstone Drive directly opposite each other. With traffic from Vanderbilt Beach Road entering Buckstone to access both centers this will create a hazardous intersection. Traffic on these roads has dramatically increased in the past several years due to addition of new residential communities and retail operations in the surrounding areas including Immokalee Road, Collier Blvd (951) and Vanderbilt Beach Road. 2. Cost Share Agreement In 2004 a Cost Share Agreement required by the County of the original developers for the three proposed residential communities, currently known as Black Bear Ridge, Falls of Portofino and Raffia Preserve, and MPUD -Carolina Villages was entered into for roads, future signalization, etc. However cost percentage to each area was determined by acreage not actual units or amount of traffic to be generated by each particular development. An agricultural parcel within the RPUD at the time of the agreement was not included but is now being considered for residential with 215 units. These units add to the vehicular traffic on Pristine and Wolf Drive. This County required CSA will have a negative financial effect on homeowners in the Wolf Creek PUD. Increases in traffic flow that would require signalization at Pristine and changes in access to Buckstone Drive are not generated by the residential communities but rather by area commercial enterprises and County growth over the years. The individual homeowner should not be penalized financially to subsidize the County for any signalization for roads that are accessed by all. As homeowners we pay our property taxes to fund the County for such purposes. The developers have met the obligation with regards to the completion of the Pristine Drive and Buckstone up to connection to Vanderbilt Beach Road. This CSA is an undue burden on homeowners and should never have been a requirement by the County to develop the original properties. 3. Usage We understand the reasoning behind the increase as the Storage Unit utilized the majority of allowable space and now the developer needs additional to make the strip mall profitable. However a greater concern regarding is how this additional space be used. The developer has advised the intent to include a fast food drive thru restaurant to be located on the east side of phase II which is adjacent to Buckstone Drive. This particular establishment is being claimed not be a drive through, however it is the same business model as a Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts (See exhibit A). Traffic generated from these types of businesses have a major impact on surrounding roads and residencies. Especially during peak drive times. morning. noon, early evenings. We oppose any type of drive up, drive through, drive in, etc. fast food establishment. The developer has also advised that they are considering a Funeral Home, Boat/Car sales/leasing establishment, dollar store etc. All of which would generate extremes amounts of traffic and as presented the actual strip mall would not accommodate such type of facilities with regards to storage or parking. As a community we want to see this property to include businesses that will not distract from the atmosphere, life style and value of our homes. 4. Amount of Allowable Footage The original vision by the County was that Carolina Villages was to be a pedestrian friendly development where there would be a mixture of office, retail and sit down restaurants and some residential units. This development has now become nothing less than your average Strip Mall with a large storage warehouse. An "unknown" on the north east parcel is being labeled "future development". This future development is a major concern. Will the balance of approximately 24,000 sq. ft. that will be left from the phase I and phase I1 build out with the approval of 50,000 sq. ft. be adequate for this parcel? Will we be here in front of the Commission in a year or two with a request for additional square footage to enable that parcel to be viable for development? Welsh LLC originally asked for an additional 100,000 sq. ft when they applied to rezone to a full CPUD, subsequently Welsh withdrew that application. With current amendment approval and completion of phase I and II will they attempt to get that additional footage with another amendment? Will there be an avenue for Welsh to obtain the full 100,000 by going around the system and reapply again for the "future" development parcel. If this 50,000 is permitted then we respectfully request that a contingency be included that no further amendment/application for additional square footage can be made by this owner, developer or any future owner,developer for the purpose of development or redevelopment of this project. This addition will bring the total to 200,000 and that must be the final allowable space permitted. 5. Lighting and Noise Reduction To install additional landscaping or other means of filtering to eliminate light and noise that directly impacts the Black Bear Ridge homeowners adjacent to Vanderbilt Commons on the north side of VC property. I respectfully ask that the Commission take into consideration requests and concerns regarding the development of property known as Vanderbilt Commons. Respectfully submitted, Beverly R. Sthith bevsmith116@gmail.com 7278 Acorn Way Naples, Fl 34119 • o • x 4 _ itik. ,,i . fir c-,....5....i1 Tii . a �`'�. art #####wimoso,, 4 1 4 ililitillit ;e: ft 0 ACT%IN • 7:t7 AM --7- a ve0.00,11 i f -,„ . .,... .„..,...„ - . --.... .t. ... ,.•...., Il \ \ N, . ,. . ,L . . _ . .. . . ., .... ,....„.......... _ .„.. ,......, .. .. . .. -.....„ II T ,.. '14 if ,,. , ri,...1 . . .-7- ........ . .--, .-..., . ........ * A. 1 ki .... Si a-1 11114.iii_ "0 ISSIlail 77"",` 11/1111 . : . III i 7f • ,‘41' I ' ti - . i . III HiLigI .., 1, . : ' ' - 1111i1111111111 „ gi 14 's ifi:----. -'i-:'-....-----.......T.10... -0,. ........-...„- ' '1 _,. . .. ..... .„.... ;: c.. ,..,. _;4; J et1. t, ,..- 4' . fr", .: --, ' iS 4. MI , - s4--,.. ' , �f %,4:A4... 1, (f., ., limi CD .i ipt. , '� r s 0 3 rn C 4, o T _ m g w o d v ;V i -.t E cp .. v Vii, _ o C '�: "' O O - C v UL. (� s n 0 O o r C C o ,' O R , - @ V T—" ,• T. o , 0 u.L 44 2 O ''f _ q W R 0 u p T� m .. O m v -5 1. vc. F 41 0E E V 0 1 .0 �,P m Ca, w a0+ o v 0 O = Kj ,r R m o 3t. - m W 3 .. O O a Z c o ta ov m 0.3 w o = a U ` W to O = = s vtV p xo � ra C� .) o w�Q = > > 3 u mOu n 2 O m a t 0 0 a r F t o z N m G C C ~ _ 1...^ 177. oO um ` 0 o CO F= .i ° p A E ` a u3T e' vt s ,n `+a A 4c ^ c o a o so m 5 Noca pE V _ ; mda S 0 A . moP a d d N H E CCZ N N 0 .0 .0 m a g F EY "E I. 0, i6 10 E E �:= V O: NY 0, m m +' s A IIf m 4 C N c c c o 1 s 0 V a 0 = V$ 0 03 .V sg o `e a E E _ ~ V ° -a > O m w Of.II m .$ T u u V °� u °� o T m o :. N 7 t C C ` o m '` ` ; C O 7 'p Y Q 0 0 E O1 m. 5. 3 O c m` m !S E # dd m < 0 U U U U W LL (7 Q 0 C. o. c, O: C7 c, co x S , r ,O ry •,), Z LLI (i) I' la , mai >,.. 5.3.L ILI < 0 4 W Y 1-- 4lii ‘ . - elm 1 _ • . _.. til • - 0 = • - _ W _ 06,0 — —. cr) — —_- , - Z '------ - ' _f . _ _ _ , ,....., _i_ _ . _ ,- _L W I.:::: - _-_•. '- _ - ,,-, _ ,:', - C(‘..i - - - 0 .5. '--i•LI-- -; ‹. C--= - _ U c _, ,-, 3 410 -- a w '. _ u 7 .... „.... ...,, ce. _ , u- - I,- i _ _ I _i_. cl ILI w 1 _ -- _ , , 2: - -L- - ›... ....., . • u.. 3 0 (., ...... cr 2 ..-= C — — tpI , w k,-/ . _ M .ad 1- - - _ .-1 C - ___ iam M — ' .±. ` ''› . _. - - — - - - - — 0 - L, --, — '-' r , ,-- Z - _ N i_ - (4 LL< , \._, . Lu - — : — _ - _ 2-: _ _ tfl, I _ a, --.- "1- - 0 Z ti ----' - ' --- - - .._, _ ,, -, - ( . - ,--, - - • - . _ - = ..,. _. __ . _ - - ..1 1.--- . -I- '' Li- a _ ...i ..... 0 __,, _ <l- --- _ , = - (..0) -- - - 1,-r r 7 -I- tO1 -- - ‘,../ 7 7 - ---> . - ''''. .2_ _ , - (_-. - $ -- ------ _ _ _ • Y ,9 ., . x -..*-at...,.."as t..Cda v ' y m ,. 1 ,,,, #4WrFm dV -0 d > l' .U�s iC uLL @']N ° V0_i Z S N -11- 41'44' O ` � :�_ D0CS �m W — ty. NO— VQm ° 'E-Z m < c * t . � YO v m o3 °v ;; m 3 0_ Z ' o iii O e3 k s.. ,p k ay .o Q: Wuo ss p ° NE smXrn10 Z40_ Ia° m5 COou n. e U H 4, W 0a VL 6j m Z .r@ .6-3-..S I at LL. U VW tiI R> V ?tOCh mme v2_-_t, Xm — Vvu a 2 m p < c IJ 01-1 dmo c m ,° iW , < vs C Z—4 ObcmJy` w = o: Vc 4 '.460' F.7 Voim U "gm trimQO Gq raW otn s'5 ~ U a Zr 2r Zuti lair' s) 7.11-0 Zv8 NOa. m > VZ $ c0 d� oin K2'co <= Q- n N .1] k Li. U0 2 Wx0O �t7am" 11-170_ as mi ' r.r f 4 m y 41 ,,amt,Ury lEc fp ti. xu;Y -0 ° it � m ° rteso u� m n - O V 'z' Eddw 5 TY 0 IL Sc1 alix C Q 3 R O ; SG ` g -6 f:,,3 ..U " i- . a t;- v �N CL au N ,.t a N O of S a: 6^GN ` .!°!‘.;) amC321': o. 78",,,- 2y -F°..67."''' D teaC o X V= 3 m Q 0 y u_ m O0 O > o r>V o J0Qmm md o: .yy_ ,t. 50-E2 G °E p R� 'n..0w c Li',:. �;m ` >'om oS_ E yo3 °I2v °C ., a ,, m < ° £ . !rtQt2, .0_2 <v Yuo � ° h0 1'.cg. Oum � < vm ye a m m a j= u � � Uti7'E W`n LQ , Ud ' S g- mLLLyJYm n ° VVm ` oW A p �m < mrr � 2 �� ui = 3E�X-2 at > � 9'nEtat O¢m ' r - pyF' "v _,,I,..2 1, o, O4a yio"Ixc 1 �v Wt?. 1 ; amhry Lao V �. to-0 . • '8 <31 ° I EYvio guvmmo < 30 a°2 ,y' > o A ° E°--c. ad0 %. J7� < oamO > c < o•E Do § o ma o- <L- ° 47:c .' = E 3cA ZZohx0hot-a S=rci haUa S1.9tto a. Ill co r. C > m n E F y tri 1 o Cs ci 0 oiS rtzxm o '&R i m Oti 0_ o L�m n.m :m v W, OVw m d t a"ti g! a 0 t•33wQ9 vo` v� v " coo -p ryooL .a L vo t C ° ..amrn cUm m - 0 `0 as Ea " 'OL ., o t' E v m d . = .2.aLo s -p n mVt 't ..`L m x L'a m I 0_,m Is' v V •® dm dO 1«. hdvo ctq„, c 0V I c.c ce m c ry Q om0_ q � �t . °N "' ° c cc v � u = ,nmrn ;m cd0_ Ou 0 <m tpF.n - H �� I.H> 0 Z_, O : aD'6 " ? 41 L.5 mS f . Qt O gtno3t- hgN !`1'�t° : a s to ov n� 0 °� -0_ W n3 - „Woo oU <L.; tLn Shmti 'wm 9E1,311.2S�mc cis,, lo tsi3 fl-o Vm.� ,E>.-_,_- x.- E.7.« A df . Zas < VQ <,1 u FH 0_Z: m O pc W „ Z (Co m, 6 u z a oton rn-0r ymu5 „'2 m r < rno < rns rnd o < o} w;a cmts mw!- mwU mwm mw¢ WwtS t < !- = U 22 •44 ...`; , >- u.I J) .. . _ _ , I _ 1 1 a. -.: .. ._.. , . D ' . -- LIJ . . ... u E. 4:.... . ... .!-,1-1_•••'!, ' .. 1,... -:-:. : a: -* -: ,. • th !J..: i-..,'-; - . _ a • . ._ _. . . L.., . . . . ..... . . . . _ . . . ' Ift - ... _ .. .. • - • ,,. . . .. , .... - . . . . -- __ . . -... _ . . C : _ -- , . . .. , • .„ . - - . .. - . . . . . ._ - - _ — --- - -- --- 7 : - - -2- --- .-- - - ._ Z . - -- - ,...,... -.'-. --: -_-. t„--:: ._ _ .-_-.- „ ,.._, ...I ' __ ... . 11 16. 2 Fe'"--- ,, y_j• r r, '.... . - *. ....,..li : (.1... ,.../ . r.. - ,...._ 7 ,,, Z ..E. ':. '...D ;. ':.7 :. 7-.: kJ< '..... • , <- r r= 1-. ,. ...li I t:z ,---. •. - - ' . -7. . =0 i. '...r. L1.2. + ..._Li± ( - ,-3: ff--, -:.-.- .-: -:. a: ':i'.- '' ;7,-, _ _,. ,.; . -- -,.... U r...--) 1) <1".. c; -,-,- - ---: .- -+ ,-.1^.. + //=.! - -- - - -- --, .n. ... L„ Se •.,' t r-• fr• _. ,-- _ - ,,...... __ — _ -- .-.. — -1-. .....4,-. . • `,...= , -. '22! cf.' 2 -W.-, 1J' r.2:' '-':--- : :-- - .--. (7.-2' - -- - .1--. ,....J 1..__ < I_ _.-.. 7 f •' CI a .., 2J Cr. '.----; ::: L----, <I: -7 4 -+, (;) „_.-3 I:. 7.r- i ' l': ::.: 7 '---.'„ :, ‘51` fl- -' J. '--,. .---' :;', 5... __ .._, — u c :jer, Ca c. .„ i„..:u m u ,,f-,, :fr.> c-r, 2._ :: ...- :- — .-L , •,2,:. :-., __._. ... PETITION RE: Growth Management Plan Amendment Application Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict Folio Numbers: 25525600520,25525600546,25525600562,25525600588, 25525600041,25525600067,25525600083, 25525600096 THE FOLLOWING PETITION IS BEING SUBMI I I ED ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF BLACK BEAR RIDGE, LOCATED IN THE WOLF CREEK PUD OF COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL. THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS HEREBY STATE THIER CONCERNS TO THE GMP AMENDMENT APPLICATION AND REQUEST ACTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS BE CONSIDERED AS FOLLOWS: Density if allowed to increase by requested 50,000 sq. ft of office/retail space it shall be contingent on no additional square footage permitted either by current owner/developer, future owner/developer, and development of present project, future project or redevelopment of project. Total amount of office/retail space will be capped at 200,000 sq. ft. Restrict unplanned portion noted as "future development" which includes 2 parcels located in the north east corner to office/retail only. No food establishment(s) to be permitted. Business types be prohibited as described as stated in Exhibit A Buffering against north property line to be revised by increasing the amount of landscaping to diffuse lights and noise from buildings and parking areas. Eliminate homeowners responsibility for the Cost Share Agreement that pertains to the signalization and future road improvements to Wolf Creek Road, Pristine Drive, Mission Hills Road,Buckstone Drive, Vanderbilt Beach Road or Collier Boulevard. Address the impact of traffic and its effect on the entire Wolf Consider the effects of density change, type of business Creek RPUD. allowed in Vanderbilt Commons and thea establishments the RPUD. Traffic impact must be evaluated innrits eentirety nre ot development iof n piece meal manner just to accommodate Vanderbilt Commons addressed in To maintain the original intent of Collier County for a office/retail environment. pedestrian friendly In addition we support the content of the letters attached to this petition as Exhibit B,C,D. ' mr,- Ladtrec_ nfG�2L-., t ACORN WAY M7/1t riJ2t// (2?.67 Z69,,, :e6z-"-f-/ -/.5 -?E9 ACORN WAY _ ACORN WAY c-e2.0 ZA( C) 7jg?- i '7-. 6 3 ACORN WAY _40%)-6-4( /7-t-i-,7. ACORN WAY r JaLeLltz_ (4.--e-i4 /7 ° 3 ACORN WAY FWYten A�-2 -.A) 7.33 ACORN WAY TiOcc, 'Z/Vii 't`t-41.---- --- ACORN WAY ,..,,, \ AR\\____ , _,,,, -__L7...z____ 0 ..c. ACORN WAY or W 70 1.D " ACORN WAY 9e-3 &th-CA/ KuLTh 7 -c5/D ACORN WAY Ma1/4), C7{�� eh' k 7J9 , i , ,\ 73t7\! i Lik.k ,i- 1 (_, ACORN WAY /27-------7Z-7._ /3(-)/ , 7 _.). ,,,) ,_). f4-T•'-.7.--- 1Z:i „, ACORN WAY ! � ACORN WAY 4 c--5-- ( A /1 01 ' 13 '5 D ACORN WAY � (' ; - 78 7) -7.5? ACORN WAY • �nJ� ACORN WAY AO f) FYN/ -i 3Q__ \A ACORN WAY I /N) (N- 67'Y-1-) )0 n I T-)-1 (-41" )-1 AU)1C2Ak 7 in ACORN WAY 1 ACORN WAY C /32 Z? ACORN WAY ACORN WAY W ', ' Leiitt, 73 J---3 •,,,, } , ACORN WAY / / i 7 e \ /14 f- fr ( - e ACORN WAY .)ddVi\.(0\At .." ) ACORN WAY IC_S\'' .A.t•-.— 7\s.AC_____ --+-') 1 \ ACORN WAY 7.,---.-7-7--,, , _---e .., ,...... ;„ _ ,,.. ..,,, ---7 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY i'--k C) ----- ACORN WAY ACORN WAY kV) 0,_, Liclytt6 Ls. 7).OA ACORN WAY i A --.7c.,,I4 ACORN WAY _ `i'-L ACORN WAY /4 ,e2/44- C)L444'tf-A, Z9V / - , ACORN WAY '&)ck Z6tA, -1'(-r- /-c;:2D 9 ! 1- ACORN WAY - ) LA ck---L----)Cle-CAma-.& 7 a 61 6 ,_ __ ` ACORN WAY , / 1.07., . t7& AV11410 9 4/ .,..._ .ii" , .....,..L.„," 7''T / J ACORN WAY 4 ,67 *-20 )4a 73 W/Ci'M/ACORN WAY // 73Z! ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ' - ` I tf3 7 ACORN WAY 74/3 ` 2 /fACORN WAY 7 /z 6 ACORN WAY t‘2:114 ‘ • / . /1`,-_--V 772 J ACORN WAY g4/ ACORN WAY o-if,;X ACORN WAY ACORN WAY (fluky Zjau) ACORN WAY =im 735-4 ��- ACORN WAY ACORN WAY /64 .� y- 7 3 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY QKL4. ACORN WAY 3 '7 g /1./w.ou Cok.qfil_ ACORN WAY tRif 7 2 ACORN WAY 41.4121 1/4 WACC-2- -2 2 6 3 ACORN WAY 3 a ACORN WAY ACORN WAY /-2- _FG=eco- -`'2 36 ACORN WAY 4/40;( 49 ,X ACORN WAY 7.-56 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY /7----Thi ,V /-- ACORN WAY--i--"; S' .0 7- \-C1 51-(i)— ACORN WAY /' ACORN WAY i r - , ACORN WAY ACORN WAY , >42:1-4•2-€4,/ 72,2 Le '-"----------- ACORN WAY / . 7/-"L\------------/"- / 73 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ,----) ACORN WAY zy" ACORN WAY 75L/ ACORN WAY 1 ‘1 7 ACORN WAY 2/4/ tel _•-6( 7_53 7 )47- • 05a, 7 ? 3 t ACORN WAY ACORN WAY -7331 ACORN WAY i r . L-311A i-jettx) 11 -1' -' -7 ACORN WAY y 41 1CC-4.1.k.---r• l' (6 tA/31-Ze/'1/4--- 7 3S-- z ACORN WAY 2)1 A-----1---------%."------ 7 LI ? S )7 ACORN WAY rl/ )L ACORN WAY -----, --72_ ACORN WAY ( _ ' ACORN WAY t .-------) R-7--. -.S . ACORN WAY -j_,QL T tic_ -r '& /14, ACORN WAY t\i \ 4, 1 rolano AtalisalTk, uii -7-4- ,- ACORN WAY bidCLA112 o y0T int 1 -o2- ACORN WAY tuati, f- .H,,i,,a,er ok te s 7 t-1- ;, , A ACORN WAY \id-1 W-",.. .7f.„(--4.--- 7 3 q„‘ 4ti ACORN WAY . 1 44ht 1/04-4-64d 13 3,5'' &---(A--U32- . -+-- IL, la 7, ()/ , ACORN WAY ACORN WAY --4: C1- ›,)• /a 7/ ACORN WAY (--1- 741it1 ACORN WAY -154:,119/ fl i 7*,,'/ ACORN WAY .--'et (f) ACORN WAY �� ,- U ,( _ 2 3 -I 3 4a rG � L0,7' ACORN WAY 73 g r/ cerI`� ACORN WAY Ott* kt-tiSL 0,-(...------ ACORN WAY .10 -7.3 fr a,, ACORN WAY -./ �i. ‘, lb 73 a- 7 4 .4-4/ ACORN NAKY 4 )>f1-6 elk? 0e01-Xl,e-4-, . .--7 3 -7,4e-c5x-). 4/ 6A--/ _ ��--�"" ACORN W Y v- � F2/‘ A ,Cr"i W 10 - ACORN WAY 4 /, 02,17 7Z ' CJ 4 , cifn W . ACORN AY ,..gyt,t(itjtyte 1-iitit-re<3 2 3 7 r ,7-2(.4-,,,i AM ACORN WAY ✓( 1---,r,®- 7 3Y ACORN WAY \, •v,.4\L-JP . -._ Ltr,c,--41 - -1 ---1 \ C\c_r,.. r cl 1,3- (N-) ACORN WAY 4 ACORN WAY c 'i / 1 -7 2-117 f ACORN WAY -)----" t.--, ' r ---72z(„. ACORN WAY 91114A/ )441'3W °X... ,..2 40 ACORN WAY �/ / j P %%'`��'i 41.1) - 70157 7,2_3 7 ACORN WAY r q ACORN WAY --7 /LI--- x , ((\j\km),:,,_/ ACORN WAY _ (-7----Yd ACORN WAY y1/1//caz7,("ei 173C7 ACORN WAY - --' Ale 4 , ( ii:,,Z&Z,, .'7 3 9. y . 1 ACORN WAY 0 7L , /� ACORN WAY -� 05 1 -C44'11/11S(-r U`l L ACORN WAY tet, f j ACORN WAY LU 1 if ,7 c(, ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY - 77 ACORN WAY -7 ..- 2- sq / ,---., 'ft" ACORN WAY l?5)/ () Lil-L -1j Tar& Qf ( 3 (li (...,_ •7 q (3 ACORN WAY ' ACORN WAY t - 1 1. ACORN WAY 1 (2, . 0 ACORN WAY i , I ric\as A 1) ''''l .:41 - / ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY LykinsDave From: Thenossens@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 2:10 PM To: SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; McDanielBill; SolisAndrew; TaylorPenny; s.carter@cmgflorida.co Cc: StrainMark; SchmidtCorby; BosiMichael Subject: Public Hearing: April 11, 2017 Attachments: Vanderbilt Common PUD Amendments.pdf; CCPCminutesFeb16,2017HearingVC.pdf Re: Growth Management Plan Amendment Application PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Blvd Commercial SubdistrictCarolinaNanderbilt Commons expansion to Mission Hills Dear Commissioners, My name is Robert Nossen. My wife and I are homeowners in Black Bear Ridge (BBR). Our house is directly behind the Preserve which abuts the Vanderbilt Commons parcel. I understand that you already received the petition from BBR homeowners in which we participated. Unfortunately, next Tuesday being the first day of Passover and with family obligations, we will be unable to attend the Commission meeting. Accordingly, my intent with this email is to provide some background information in support of our concerns, namely usage/further square footages and cost sharing based on traffic requirements. Usage/Square Footage The original PUD for the parcel now called Vanderbilt Commons provided for 150,000 square feet of mixed use including residential and specialty shops. It was meant to support the planned communities within walking distance of Vanderbilt Commons. Last year, we found out that a large (95,500 sq. ft.) 3 story storage facility was going to be built on the NW corner of the property. We really didn't mind that since it wouldn't generate significant traffic on either Buckstone Dr. or Pristine Dr. However, in September 2016 we were advised that the developer, Welsh, planned to amend the PUD to change it from a MPUD as outlined in the attached amendment summary. This would have allowed gas stations, drive thru etc. and eliminated all residential units. He also planned to increase the square footage to 250,000, attributing the increase to 50,000 to allow for the storage unit and 50,000 to a "scriveners" error in the original PUD. We voiced strong objections to the changes at a 9/7/2016 neighborhood Information meeting as well as in subsequent correspondence. Then, in November 2016, we were presented with the current amendment for 200,000 square feet and only minor changes to the MPUD. However, Welsh's president remained vague as to whether there would still be a fast food drive thru such as Caribou/Einstein with all of its traffic issues. Is there really a need for another drive thru when we already have a Dunkin Donuts drive thru, a Subway and a breakfast/lunch place (Cafe Blu) in Mission Hills? Also, there are the 2 lots for future development originally slated for residential use. Accordingly, we are very concerned that the developer will eventually return with another amendment for different usage and additional square footage. This must not happen. Cost Sharing In 2004, the 5 owners in Wolf Creek PUD and what is now described as Vanderbilt Commons signed a cost sharing agreement for development of Pristine Drive. It's my understanding that the County was responsible for its creation. The agreement allocated percentages of responsibility based on acreage and also allocated corresponding units to the PUD portion of the agreement. Accordingly, BBR ended up with 30% of the potential cost while Vanderbilt Commons has 9.5%. This agreement is still in effect since it follows the land and has been used during the build out of Pristine Dr. I believe that all work on Pristine Dr. has now been completed and the road is in the process of being turned over to the County. That brings us to the ongoing issue for any future improvements to Vanderbilt Beach Rd. at the intersection of Pristine Dr. If that cost is passed on to the communities, that means that BBR would still bear 30% of the cost. Accordingly, this 1 agreement no longer would (if it ever did) make sense considering that the need for any additional road work such as a traffic light is based on traffic studies. Also, since 2004, the Wolf Creek PUD has been replaced or amended at least 3 times, it now allows for 754 units compared to 591 in 2004 and doesn't reflect actual build out. For example, BBR wasn't incorporated until a year after the agreement and designed with a full build out of 100 homes, not the 203 allocated as part of the cost sharing agreement. BBR now represents just 13.3% of the total number of units in the current Wolf Creek PUD. Further, this doesn't even take into account the effects of Vanderbilt Common, Mission Hills and the cut through traffic with drivers using Wolf Rd. and Pristine Dr. to avoid the CollierNanderbilt Beach light. One final thought for consideration. BBR has two entrances. The primary entrance is on Buckstone while the Pristine entrance is solely for residents and emergency vehicles with access/egress limited through the use of gate clickers. Also, due to the configuration of our roads within BBR, some of our homeowners may presently find it more convenient to use the Buckstone egress even when heading west on Vanderbilt Beach. This further reduces the use of Pristine by BBR. In conclusion, the Planning Commission and County Attorney recognized the cost sharing issue at its February 16th meeting as reflected in part of the transcripts of that meeting (see attached pages 16-17). However, ultimately we will probably need your help as Commissioners to resolve this issue. Thank you, Robert Nossen 239-591-3956 2 Vanderbilt Commons PUDA/ GMPA— Summary of Proposed Amendments Note:The following documents will be submitted to Collier County. The strike-through language will be omitted from the updated documents. The underlined items will be added to the documents. The items below summarize the proposed changes from the first NIM to today. NIM—September 7th,2016 1. Proposed the addition of 100,000 sq ft to the existing 150,000 sq ft for a total of 250,000 sq ft 2. 95,500 sq ft would be allocated to the self-storage facility 3. Proposed fast food with drive-thru (PUD) 4. Proposed gas, c-store,fast food and tire stores(GMP) 5. Removed 64 residential units(made Carolina Commons/Vanderbilt Commons a CPUD) 6. PUD acreage was reduced from 15.88 acres to 14.492 acres due to County ROW taking (acceptance of Pristine/Buckstone Drives) 7. Deviate to remove wall requirements along Vanderbilt Beach Road 8. Reduce perimeter landscape buffers from 20-feet to 15-feet since PUD is now less than 15 acres per!DC requirements 4.06.02 9. County requested title sheet of PUD to be updated with new name,owners, etc. 10. All other components of the existing GMP and PUD remain the same NIM—November 9th,2016 1. Proposed the addition of 50,000 sq ft to the existing 150,000 sq ft for a total of 200,000 sq ft 2. 95,500 sq ft would be allocated to the self-storage facility 3. Removed 6 residential units for a total of 58 existing residential units(remains as MPUD) 4. PUD acreage was reduced from 15.88 acres to 14.492 acres due to County ROW taking (acceptance of Pristine/Buckstone Drives) 5. Deviate to remove wall requirements along Vanderbilt Beach Road 6. Reduce perimeter landscape buffers from 20-feet to 15-feet since PUD is now less than 15 acres per LDC requirements 4.06.02 7. County requested title sheet of PUD to be updated with new name, owners, etc. 8. All other components of the existing GMP and PUD remain the February 16,2017 MR.BRACCI: That is correct as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the crux of the error,and we didn't participate in that.Had a document like that come forward,most of the county planners and us, if we had gotten to review it before it was finalized,I can't imagine we wouldn't have looked at intensity or density as a basis for cost sharing far above acreage,because the zoning for Black Bear Ridge has more units available to it. If they don't build out to that,it seems questionable on how you apply a cost share based on a lower density when it's configured on a per-acre basis. And the same goes for a commercial parcel that does increase its intensity,like could happen here. And,actually,your argument for increasing intensity on this by 50,000 square feet is--might be a little difficult to address because they're actually reducing the intensity by the square footage that they used. But regardless,your cost-sharing agreement,not having a part of the county,not having the county participating in it,I think,has inherent problems with it,and I'm not sure the best resolution of that. I certainly will look to Mr.Klatzkow if you could opine on what bearing that agreement should be on the zoning efforts coming through for this board either at the GMP or LDC level. MR.KLATZKOW: Yeah,I walked over earlier in this meeting to Trinity and said,you need to wrap this up before this concludes. I know where this is heading,and it's going to be a train wreck. We need to get this entire issue as far as who's going to pay for the light resolved as part of this process,in my opinion. I don't think ifs fair that ultimately the homeowners have to kick in on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, in the PUD--we have a detailed transportation section of the PUD, and the applicant is coming forward proposing to strike quite a bit of that and rewrite it. And I would turn to Mike or—because Mike is the overall zoning. I know Corby's strictly Comprehensive Planning. But,Mike,the arrangements for how these roads are to be taken--handled in regards to payment and responsibility,is that something that can be addressed in that transportation section of the PUD,assuming that either the applicant and the opposition parties get together and work it out on their own,or can that be something that can be dictated to be included in the PUD? MR.BOSI: Well,the legality of that,I may turn to a little advice from the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to figure out how to find a solution,Jeff,outside of a document we don't have any power—authority over. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: The current PUD does make reference to a shared agreement,but when this comes through as the PUD amendment,we can strike that language and it can be addressed through a prop share arrangement like we typically do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in order for this to come through at the PUD level when the applicant wants to actually come in and get the uses squared away and the additional square footage added, we will have an opportunity to address the issue and hopefully clean up the sharing agreement you currently have that's not part of our basis? MR.BRACCI: One complication there is that the--Black Bear is in the Wolf Creek PUD. This is in a separate PUD,I believe. So somehow we'd have to link these PUDs in some kind of process before the County Commission in order to accomplish that. I think that there may be--you know,if everyone's willing,we could accomplish that,but I don't think it's as easy here as just addressing it in this one,because it—the cost-sharing agreement spreads over multiple PUDs. MR.KLATZKOW: When this first started years ago--my memory is a little dim,because this is years ago that we started developing this area;Mission Hills,Black Bear. The representations the developers were making as to who was going to do what and what was going to develop isn't quite the way it's developing. I'm not saying--there weren't any misrepresentations made. It's just that,you know,as time goes on needs change,market changes,whatever,so that I think it's appropriate that we take a look at what we did and why and now how we're going to fix it,all right,because what's going on here is not the way it was supposed to develop entirely. It's changed a bit. That's fine. The county's changed a lot,too. But as long as we're changing it,okay,then there's no reason why we can't go back to the beginning and say okay,this was predicated on that,that's not happening,we're going to change this. And it may be for Page 16 of 29 February 16,2017 several items that we look into this and say,you know what? We need to fix this now before this is completed,this thing. Because there was a reason we had this loop here with Wolfe Road going straight down to VBR,all right. We put that in as a bypass years ago,all right,because we new Immokalee Road was going to get heavily trafficked,and at the end of the day,we knew people were going to take a left on Immokalee down here, get down to VBR,and then get into town. This is not by accident,this entire loop. We also knew that VBR eventually was going to get expanded to the east,and the shopping center here is going to get more and more dense. But this little shopping center in front of Black Bear,this was supposed to be just,like,personal uses for the residential use,some restaurants,hair cutting place,that sort of thing. That's what was explained to us with the way this was going to develop. It was going to be a neighborhood little place. It's not quite developing like that,because the county's not quite developing like that. All right. So it's appropriate that staff goes back to the beginning as to why we're doing it this way, what representations were made,okay,and then,perhaps, in this process try to clean up what we can so that the area can develop hopefully in a better way rather than a piecemeal process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think--go ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Jeff,may I ask you a question. Originally,how many developers—or, I mean,how many people are supposed to be in on this cost-sharing agreement? MR.KLATZKOW: It was an odd arrangement at the time because it was multiple developers who came in on this. Usually you just get the one developer with the cost share. Here there are multiple developers. MR.BRACCI: I do have some-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think I want a--I think I know a path to get this resolved. Corby or Mike,a transmittal goes to the state after the Board gets an ORC report and comes back; we do adoption. Even if there's no objections from the state,even if the Board on a three--I think it's a simple majority vote--approve it for a transmittal,we have the absolute right to deny it at adoption; is that correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The whole process that you're here for today and the idea for getting this PUD changed,or a PUDA,affords the community an opportunity they would not have had if the developer didn't come forward and do this. So by letting this transmittal move forward we can get three or four more months of item in which you and the developer can hopefully get together,the transportation staff could come up with a better solution to the road system out there,and that the next time when it comes back for adoption,we can make sure these things are resolved as they should have been probably from the time it started. Now,this is an opportunity that arose because of this request. Had the request not come up,it would have been a civil matter probably for you guys to have to handle on your own. So I think,regardless of any issues of compatibility,to get this past transmittal to get to the next phase would give us the opportunity to really get into this and maybe find a resolution, Steve,and I ask for your conversation of that as far as-- MR. BRACCI: Obviously,I have to defer to my clients,who I haven't spoken to. But just in terms of the concept, I mean,the transmittal itself, I don't think there would be an issue other than,as we all know, typically the transmittal is the precursor to what happens at zoning,you know. And,again,the 50,000 square feet in and of itself isn't as much as the issue as how it's going to operate,you know. And it gets back to Mr. Klatzkow's point a moment ago about how--what the original intent of this was was sort of a blend. It was going to be residential over retail.You know,it was going to be a little bit of a streetscape type of thing. And as Mr.Klatzkow mentioned,the character of this particular project's changed;the character of the county has changed. And if we're going to revisit these--you know,a lot of the--you know, if we're going to acknowledge the transmittal going forward,it's with the understanding that these things should be revisited like we're talking about,maybe with more particularity than what might otherwise be at a PUD hearing that follows the transmittal on the GMP to the state. Page 17 of 29 LykinsDave From: faye.collettsutton@louisville.edu Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 1:09 PM To: SaundersBurt Cc: LykinsDave Subject: Thank you! Burt: thank you for meeting with the Black Bear Ridge Board this morning and allowing us to summarize the issues we are facing with the commercial development surrounding us as well as the problems with the cost sharing agreement. We appreciate your time. Faye DR. FAYE SUTTON Professor Emerita 7311 Acorn Way Naples, FL 34119 239-405-5199 AMERICAN PROUD 1 LykinsDave From: faye.collettsutton@louisville.edu Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:22 PM To: Terrie Abrams Cc: LykinsDave Subject: RE: Vanderbilt Preserve -Wolf Creek PUD OK but cc Dave Lykins at davelykins@colliergov.net. DR. FAYE SUTTON Professor Emerita 7311 Acorn Way Naples, FL 34119 239-405-5199 AMERICAN PROUD From:Terrie Abrams [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:11 PM To:faye.collettsutton@louisville.edu Subject: Fwd: Vanderbilt Preserve -Wolf Creek PUD I am going to send this on to Burt Sent from my iPad Terrie 630.244.4800 Begin forwarded message: From: Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com> Date:April 20, 2017 at 6:56:36 PM EDT To:Terrie<terrie.abrams@gmail.com> Cc: alien marc<mallencny@yahoo.com> Subject: Re:Vanderbilt Preserve-Wolf Creek PUD I do not see why not. Steve Steven J.Bracci, PA Ph:[239)596-2635 Original message From:Terrie Date:Thu,Apr 20, 2017 6:36 PM To:Steve Bracci; Cc: allen marc; Subject:Re:Vanderbilt Preserve-Wolf Creek PUD 1 Is there any reason we shouldn't send this note on to Burt Saunders? From my I phone Terrie 630.244.4800 On Apr 20, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com>wrote: From: Steve Bracci Sent:Thursday, April 20, 2017 4:58 PM To: 'AshtonHeidi' <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay<RayBellows@colliergov.net>; StoneScott <ScottStone@colliergov.net> Subject: RE:Vanderbilt Preserve -Wolf Creek PUD Heidi—In 2013 when the County amended the Wolf Creek PUD, it did a workaround to avoid the Cost Sharing Agreement and the allocation of units under that agreement. In an effort to avoid application of that agreement, the County went out of its way to assign units specifically to Parcels 1A through 3A. As a corollary to this workaround, Black Bear Ridge now would like the same type of protection in reverse. Specifically, as part of the Vanderbilt Preserve amendment insubstantial change process whereby they are attempting to shrink their onsite preserve, Black Bear Ridge wants to be sure that the developer/land owner is not attempting to take the extra 100 units of density that Black Bear Ridge is entitled to under the Coast Sharing Agreement (ie,the "Allocation Agreement). (See numbered pages 53 and 54 of the attached CCPC minutes). Black Bear Ridge would like a clarification that there is a specific allocation of remaining Wolf Creek PUD units to Parcels 6, 7, and 8 (Black Bear Ridge). Also, my client will be meeting with Mike Bosi tomorrow, to present a compelling case for why the County is entertaining what would appear to be a double-dipping by the owner of Vanderbilt Preserve,whereby they are applying the "25% preserve rule" twice, in an effort to improperly shrink the preserve. I hope that staff(Mike and Summer) will listen closely to this presentation, including the written analysis that my clients will be bringing to the meeting. Finally, my clients feel (and I concur)that the County is mixing up its terminology for "native vegetation" and "preserve area." The result is potentially that any concession given to Vanderbilt Preserve would prevent any future use of Black Bear Ridge's preserve area for passive recreation that might reduce some of its "native vegetation." Black Bear Ridge strongly opposes such an infringement upon its rights. Further, we believe that it is bad public policy for the county to adopt processes that would lead to a "race to eliminate native vegetation." I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you further, in follow-up to my clients' meeting with Mike and Summer tomorrow morning (Friday). 2 Sincerely, Steve <image002.png> Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: AshtonHeidi [mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net] Sent:Tuesday, April 11, 2017 4:32 PM To:Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay<RayBellows@colliergov.net>; StoneScott <ScottStone@col liergov.net> Subject: RE: Vanderbilt Preserve -Wolf Creek PUD Steve-He is relying on Section 4.1 and Section 5.3A of Ord. No. 07-46. /la'flekoit-Cicio Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-8400 From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 5:06 PM To:AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay<RavBellows@colliergov.net>; StoneScott <ScottStone@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Vanderbilt Preserve-Wolf Creek PUD Heidi-how does Bruce Anderson justify his statement that "clearly the focus is on the entire PUD's preserve areas and does not require 25% retention on each individual parcel?" 3 See the attached highlighted excerpt from the recorded Cost Sharing Agreement which includes Wolf Creek. The County is fully aware of this Cost Sharing Agreement, having acknowledged it on numerous occasions. Is the County enabling a process whereby Black Bear Ridge's rights to reduce its preserve in the future are now being ceded to Vanderbilt Preserve? It seems to me that Vanderbilt Preserve must stand on its own for its preserve area requirements. Steve <image004.png> Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From:AshtonHeidi [mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 4:23 PM To:Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay<RavBellows@colliergov.net>; StoneScott <ScottStone@col liergov.net> Subject: RE:Vanderbilt Preserve -Wolf Creek PUD Steve, Attached are the emails relevant to your request. Please see the first email,which provides that PDI's also go to the BCC. ad/fid torr-Ceio Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-8400 4 From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@ibraccilaw.com] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:59 PM To: AshtonHeidi Subject: Vanderbilt Preserve - Wolf Creek PUD Hello Heidi—I understand that after a conversation you had with Bruce Anderson, the Vanderbilt Preserve PUD amendment request went from a full PUD amendment to an insubstantial change. Is that correct, and if so can you explain the reason for the change in process? Dan Smith had previously informed my Black Bear Ridge client that this would be a full PUD amendment hearing. Thank you, Steve <image005.png> Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 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. <CCPC Minutes 03212013 R palermo_wolf pdf#94DF.pdf 5 LykinsDave From: faye.collettsutton@louisville.edu Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 6:52 PM To: LykinsDave Subject: FW: PI 20160000404 Preserve Reduction - Black Bear Ridge Dave: the Board wants to keep you in the loop regarding the second development being planned near us. The East Coast developer wants to reduce the small preserve space in half to put in more townhomes. The Board is going to meet with Mike Bosi and Planning in the morning. You are invited to attend tomorrow and any of the meetings we have with the County staff. I apologize for this short notice. This parcel backs up to Island Walk on Pristine Drive and is different than the Vanderbilt Commons which the Commissioners voted to send to the state. Anytime you have any questions let me know and I will get you answers or to the right person within the Community. Thanks. Faye DR. FAYE SUTTON Professor Emerita 7311 Acorn Way Naples, FL 34119 239-405-5199 AMERICAN PROUD From:Terrie Abrams [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, April 20, 2017 6:17 PM To: faye.collettsutton@louisville.edu Subject: Fwd: PI 20160000404 Preserve Reduction - Black Bear Ridge Sent from my iPad Terrie 630.244.4800 Begin forwarded message: From: BosiMichael <MichaelBosiPcolliergov.net> Date:April 20, 2017 at 3:51:26 PM EDT To:Terrie<terrie.abrams@gmail.com> Subject: RE: PI 20160000404 Preserve Reduction -Black Bear Ridge Terri, Unlike Mark,the CCPC members are volunteers and not within the building on staff. We, as staff, most certainly can hear your perspective, but as far as lobbying a CCPC member,those arrangements are made outside of staff, directly between the CCPC member and agent or party. Here's the link to the CCPC members. http://www.colliergov.net/Your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning- division/zoning-services-section/collier-county-planning-commission-ccpc See you tomorrow, mike 1 Original Message From:Terrie [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 3:34 PM To: BosiMichael <MichaelBosi(a@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: PI 20160000404 Preserve Reduction - Black Bear Ridge Hi ... any chance you could get another planning commission person to meet with us tomorrow since Mark can't make it ! From my I phone Terrie 630.244.4800 >On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:43 PM, BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>wrote: >Thank you Terri! See you Friday. > Original Message > From: Terrie Abrams [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] >Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:42 PM >To: BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net> >Subject: Re: PI 20160000404 Preserve Reduction - Black Bear Ridge > I like your style .... quick on emails ! >Sent from my iPad >Terrie >630.244.4800 >> On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:41 PM, BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>wrote: >>Yes Summer has accepted the invite. » mike » Original Message >> From: Terrie Abrams [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] >>Sent:Tuesday,April 18, 2017 4:36 PM >>To: BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net> >>Subject: Re: PI 20160000404 Preserve Reduction - Black Bear Ridge >>Yes ... we are still on . Will Summer be there ? »Sent from my iPad >>Terrie >> 630.244.4800 »>On Apr 18, 2017, at 2:57 PM, BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>wrote: »> >>>Terrie, 2 >>> I just spoke with Mark and he will not be at the meeting.The petition was originally going to be heard by Mark sitting as the Hearing Examiner, but once it was elevated to the CCPC due to the heightened public concern, he no longer can take part in the discussion as a CCPC member. When the PDI is heard by the CCPC, he will leave the room and not take part in the process. Dan and I can still meet with you and Marc to hear your position this Friday, its just Mark won't be involved. »> Please let me know if we are still on for Friday. »>Thanks, »> mike >>> »> Original Message »> From:Terrie Abrams [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] >>>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 2:01 PM »>To: BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net> >>>Subject: Re: PI 20160000404 Preserve Reduction - Black Bear Ridge »> >>> But Mark Strain will be there ? »> >>>Sent from my iPad >>>Terrie »>630.244.4800 »> »> >>>>On Apr 17, 2017, at 1:51 PM, BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>wrote: >>» »»Terri, As I mentioned, not sure of Dan's schedule, so his attendance is tentative. >>» >>» Original Message »» From:Terrie Abrams [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] >>>>Sent: Monday,April 17, 2017 1:49 PM >>>>To: BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net> >>>>Cc: StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; SmithDaniel <DanielSmith@colliergov.net>; BrownAraqueSummer<SummerBrownAraque@colliergov.net>; alien marc<mallencny@yahoo.com> >>>>Subject: Re: PI 20160000404 Preserve Reduction - Black Bear Ridge >>» >>>>Great ... April 21 at 9 am . Will everyone be available? >>» >>>>Sent from my iPad »»Terrie »»630.244.4800 >>» >>» »»>On Apr 17, 2017, at 1:42 PM, BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>wrote: »»> »»>Terri, >>>>> Dan is out today, but he is in tomorrow. I will talk with him to check his schedule, but how would a 9am tentative meeting work for you and Mr. Allen? »»>Sincerely, »»> mike »»> »»> Original Message »»> From: Terrie Abrams [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] »»>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 1:26 PM 3 »»>To: StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; SmithDaniel <DanielSmith@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; BrownAraqueSummer <SummerBrownAraque@colliergov.net> »»>Cc: alien marc<mallencny@yahoo.com> >>>>>Subject: PI 20160000404 Preserve Reduction - Black Bear Ridge »»> »»> Hello, »»> >>>>> Marc Allen and I would like to meet with you to understand how the County is looking at this preserve reduction request as our research indicates a conflict with existing ordinances. »»> >>>>>We would prefer Friday APRIL 21 ...anytime. Or we could meet on April 24 or 25. »»> »»> Regards, »»> >>>>>Sent from my iPad >>>>>Terrie »»>630.244.4800 »»> »»> »»> >>>>> 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. 4 LykinsDave From: Terrie Abrams <terrie.abrams@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 4:45 PM To: SaundersBurt Cc: LykinsDave Subject: Black Bear Ridge Hello Burt, Black Bear Ridge would like to schedule a meeting with you to discuss the latest developments surrounding our community and how we move forward with the county on dealing with road improvements.We greatly appreciate the time and support you have shown us. How do we get on your calendar? I tried scheduling a meeting with Nick Casalanguida but received no response. Sent from my iPad Terrie 630.244.4800 1 LykinsDave From: Terrie <terrie.abrams@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 11:37 AM To: CasalanguidaNick Cc: MarcellaJeanne; ScottTrinity;Anderson, Bruce (BAnderson@ralaw.com); LykinsDave; Steve Bracci Subject: Re: BBR phone call - May 5 , 2017 Thanks . We are keeping our District Commissioner involved with regularly scheduled meetings. One is coming up. From my I phone Terrie 630.244.4800 On May 5, 2017, at 11:28 AM, CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> wrote: Good Morning Terrie, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this morning.Your recollection and summary of our conversation is not quite accurate. We work transparently and fairly for both you in public trust as a citizen and public service for the developer and our Board. I will schedule the meeting and I will certainly keep an open mind. I have the copied Mr. Anderson and Mr. Lykins so that both parties area aware and the Commissioner of the district is also informed. Jeanne, Please work with Trinity to set this meeting up. Please make sure Trinity invites all interested parties. Please see my comments below underlined.... - the county required the developers to address road infrastructure yet you and others didn't read it to make sure it satisfied the needs of the county or residents. The county reviewed and approved all documents that were part of the public process and enforceable by the County. We did not create, review, or approved the private agreement. That was done outside of the County's review. It was completed and signed prior to any county staff seeing it. We set the requirements for a joint infrastructure project that collectively handled all of your combined traffic impacts. How the individual parties chose to fund those improvements, the timing, and stipulations were privately agreed upon. - we will provide you with a pre read prior to the meeting on May 10 or 11 Thank you, I will ask Jeanne to make sure all sides can attend the meeting in a an open and transparent environment. - your " dear friend" is Bruce Anderson 1 I do not appreciate the mischaracterization. Bruce is a professional colleague and I respect him immensely. You will find that Bruce and I have had many professional disagreements. I will treat both parties without bias and make my recommendation to the Board based on past practice. - Trinity has a plan to ask the developer of Vanderbilt Commons to pay for the turn into the plaza which is already his requirement. But the plan is to take it one step further to to eliminate the need forever for more improvements such as a traffic signal even if it is warranted and becomes a safety issue. I have asked Trinity to evaluate a left turn lane in lieu of a signal. - it is our belief the residents do not have any cost burden for signalization or road improvements as they lie with the county and or developers. The burden you currently have or do not have will be based on approved ordinances, transfers of obligations through contracts, and private agreements. I cannot make a determination based on the limited discussion we have had. Respectfully, Nick Casalanguida Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@Colliergov.net 239-252-8383 <image001.png> From:Terrie [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 11:03 AM To: CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: BBR phone call- May 5 , 2017 Hi Nick, Thanks for the call this morning. Just a quick recap. - the county required the developers to address road infrastructure yet you and others didn't read it to make sure it satisfied the needs of the county or residents. - we will provide you with a pre read prior to the meeting on May 10 or 11 - your " dear friend" is Bruce Anderson - Trinity has a plan to ask the developer of Vanderbilt Commons to pay for the turn into the plaza which is already his requirement. But the plan is to take it one step further to to eliminate the need forever for more improvements such as a traffic signal even if it is warranted and becomes a safety issue. - it is our belief the residents do not have any cost burden for signalization or road improvements as they lie with the county and or developers. 2 We look forward to meeting with you and finalizing an appropriate quick action to resolve this mess. Kind Regards, Terrie 630.244.4800 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 LykinsDave From: CasalanguidaNick Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 1:29 PM To: LykinsDave Subject: Re: BBR phone call - May 5 , 2017 I'm happy to attend if the Commissioner would like me there. Sent from my iPhone On May 5, 2017, at 11:31 AM, LykinsDave <DaveLykins@colliergov.net> wrote: Nick...FYI...The Commissioner is meeting with Terrie Abrams and Black Bear Ridge residents at 11 am on Monday May 22nd ...please advise if the date/time is good for you. We can move the meeting to the Commissioner's Board Room and block off an hour. Regards... Dave Lykins Executive Coord. to District 3 Commissioner Burt Saunders davelykins a(�colliergov.net 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite#303 Naples, FL 34112 P: (239)252-8603 <image002.gif> 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: CasalanguidaNick Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 11:29 AM To:Terrie<terrie.abrams@gmail.com>; MarcellaJeanne <JeanneMarcella@colliergov.net> Cc: ScottTrinity<TrinityScott@colliergov.net>; 'Anderson, Bruce (BAnderson@ralaw.com)' <BAnderson@ralaw.com>; LykinsDave<DaveLykins@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: BBR phone call - May 5 , 2017 Good Morning Terrie, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this morning. Your recollection and summary of our conversation is not quite accurate. We work transparently and fairly for both you in public trust as a citizen and public service for the developer and our Board. I will schedule the meeting and I will certainly keep an open mind. I have the copied Mr. Anderson and Mr. Lykins so that both parties area aware and the Commissioner of the district is also informed. Jeanne, Please work with Trinity to set this meeting up. Please make sure Trinity invites all interested parties. Please see my comments below underlined.... 1 - the county required the developers to address road infrastructure yet you and others didn't read it to make sure it satisfied the needs of the county or residents. The county reviewed and approved all documents that were part of the public process and enforceable by the County. We did not create, review, or approved the private agreement. That was done outside of the County's review. It was completed and signed prior to any county staff seeing it. We set the requirements for a joint infrastructure project that collectively handled all of your combined traffic impacts. How the individual parties chose to fund those improvements, the timing, and stipulations were privately agreed upon. - we will provide you with a pre read prior to the meeting on May 10 or 11 Thank you, I will ask Jeanne to make sure all sides can attend the meeting in a an open and transparent environment. - your " dear friend" is Bruce Anderson I do not appreciate the mischaracterization. Bruce is a professional colleague and I respect him immensely. You will find that Bruce and I have had many professional disagreements. I will treat both parties without bias and make my recommendation to the Board based on past practice. - Trinity has a plan to ask the developer of Vanderbilt Commons to pay for the turn into the plaza which is already his requirement. But the plan is to take it one step further to to eliminate the need forever for more improvements such as a traffic signal even if it is warranted and becomes a safety issue. I have asked Trinity to evaluate a left turn lane in lieu of a signal. - it is our belief the residents do not have any cost burden for signalization or road improvements as they lie with the county and or developers. The burden you currently have or do not have will be based on approved ordinances, transfers of obligations through contracts, and private agreements. I cannot make a determination based on the limited discussion we have had. Respectfully, Nick Casalanguida Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@Colliergov.net 239-252-8383 From:Terrie [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 11:03 AM To: CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: BBR phone call - May 5, 2017 2 Hi Nick, Thanks for the call this morning. Just a quick recap. -the county required the developers to address road infrastructure yet you and others didn't read it to make sure it satisfied the needs of the county or residents. -we will provide you with a pre read prior to the meeting on May 10 or 11 -your " dear friend" is Bruce Anderson - Trinity has a plan to ask the developer of Vanderbilt Commons to pay for the turn into the plaza which is already his requirement. But the plan is to take it one step further to to eliminate the need forever for more improvements such as a traffic signal even if it is warranted and becomes a safety issue. - it is our belief the residents do not have any cost burden for signalization or road improvements as they lie with the county and or developers. We look forward to meeting with you and finalizing an appropriate quick action to resolve this mess. Kind Regards, Terrie 630.244.4800 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 LykinsDave From: George Vuko <George@welshfl.com> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:03 PM To: LykinsDave Subject: RE: Meeting with Commissioner Saunders Thank you sir!. Regards, GV From: LykinsDave [mailto:DaveLykins@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 2:00 PM To: George Vuko<George@welshfl.com> Subject: RE: Meeting with Commissioner Saunders See you Monday at 11 am. Have a good weekend. Regards... Dave Lykins Executive Coord. to District 3 Commissioner Burt Saunders davelykins(a colliergov.net 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite#303 Naples, FL 34112 P: (239 252-8603 rer County 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 Vuko [mailto:George@welshfl.com] Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 1:59 PM To: LykinsDave<DaveLykins@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Meeting with Commissioner Saunders Yes,thank you Dave. Regards, GV From: LykinsDave [mailto:DaveLykins@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 1:54 PM To: George Vuko <George@welshfl.com> Subject: Meeting with Commissioner Saunders George, I realize it's late notice, but are you available to meet with Commissioner Saunders 11 am Monday May 8th? He had an opening that just occurred...Please advise. Regards... Dave Lykins Executive Coord. to District 3 Commissioner Burt Saunders davelykinscolliergov.net 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite#303 Naples, FL 34112 P: (219252-8603 Co rer County 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 LykinsDave From: CasalanguidaNick Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 5:03 PM To: Terrie Abrams Cc: MarcellaJeanne; ScottTrinity; LykinsDave; Bracci Steve; KlatzkowJeff; George Vuko; rbanderson@napleslaw.com; CasalanguidaNick Subject: RE: BBR phone call - May 5 , 2017 Hi Terrie, I believe all PUD Ordinances state the Developer or successors and assigns. Developer commitments are handled very differently during bulk transfers or individual sales. Buyers negotiate their terms with the developer based on where the obligations will ultimately reside. Development bonds are currently collected as part of all onsite platted construction projects approved by the County. Offsite construction obligations sometimes come with surety such as bonds or letters of credit depending on the project. In the case of traffic signals,they are subject to warrants, which may or may not ever happen, and can take upwards of 5 to 10 and even 15 years to meet warrants. If the offsite improvement is specific and tied to a capital project that requires agreements with the County, then we make sure that a form of surety is included. I have worked on dozens of agreements with developers that have produced very clear and positive outcomes.Your own development is thoughtfully connected with private and public roads that came out of many meetings with developers.This offsite obligation is complicated because each contributing party is in a different phase of development and includes residential and commercial owners. In this case, a private agreement was probably a very good vehicle to meet the obligations.The problem arises when the new owner has not been made aware of the encumbrance or it is not clearly spelled out in the transaction. Practically all developers have some sort of private agreement between partners and lending institutions that define their obligations.Since these agreements are below the governing PUD Ordinance and have no obligations or commitments that the County subscribes to, we have no reason to review them. Even if we did, we have no authority to modify them.They are all disclosed to buyers in future transactions such as the title commitment of your purchase identifying the cost sharing agreement on line 24. It is important that each buyer takes the time to review the encumbrances on the property they intend to purchase during the due diligence period. My recollection is that the County has rarely ever required surety for traffic signals due to the amount of time that elapses from the original approval up to and through the warrant period.Almost every PUD I have seen in Collier County includes language that the traffic signal will be the responsibility of the developer or his successors and assigns, if warranted. That all said, I believe that the current developer seeking a zoning change intends to review the County's recommendation for the developer to construct a left turn lane with the County installing a directional median to the east.This will eliminate the signal issue as it will not likely meet warrants anyway. I encourage you to explore that with them as the cost is significantly less.As to their willingness to reconsider the cost sharing, I cannot speak to that. I suggest that we leave the remainder of this discussion to the upcoming meeting. You will find myself and our staff to be very willing to discuss solutions with all of you. Enjoy your weekend.... Respectfully, Nick Casalanguida 1 Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@Colliergov.net 239-252-8383 C�osoity From:Terrie Abrams [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 2:50 PM To: CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Cc: MarcellaJeanne <JeanneMarcella@colliergov.net>; ScottTrinity<TrinityScott@colliergov.net>; LykinsDave <DaveLykins@colliergov.net>; Bracci Steve<steve@braccilaw.com> Subject: Re: BBR phone call - May 5, 2017 Nick, It is far more professional to engage during our face to face meeting so I apologize for not being able to help myself here and comment again. My last email ... I promise. Can we all agree that the PUD ordinance says the "developer" will be responsible for intersection improvements? Isn't that what developer bonds are for? And, shouldn't the county have required agreement from the developers so that proper security bonds could have been obtained by the county? You had mentioned the multiple developers involved couldn't sort things out. Isn't that where the counties expertise lies in establishing funding for infrastructure in a clear and concise fashion. Versus something that has been hanging out there for years that the " best of the best "thinks is a can of worms ? This goes back to your statement this morning that the county required the developer agreement but never read it (supposedly). 2 We Black Bear Ridge citizens do place public trust in the County — to enforce the developer obligations transparently and fairly, as part of the County's public service. Not to let it slip and then later attempt to place the financial burden on taxpayer-owners. I am very sorry if you were offended by my Bruce comment but could not figure out the relevancy to our conversation when you mentioned "Bruce was a dear friend". My background is the private sector so keeping business and friendship was a clear distinction. I look forward to our meeting. Thank you very much for your time. Kind Regards, Sent from my iPad Terrie 630.244.4800 On May 5, 2017, at 11:28 AM, CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> wrote: Good Morning Terrie, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this morning. Your recollection and summary of our conversation is not quite accurate. We work transparently and fairly for both you in public trust as a citizen and public service for the developer and our Board. I will schedule the meeting and I will certainly keep an open mind. I have the copied Mr.Anderson and Mr. Lykins so that both parties area aware and the Commissioner of the district is also informed. Jeanne, Please work with Trinity to set this meeting up. Please make sure Trinity invites all interested parties. Please see my comments below underlined.... - the county required the developers to address road infrastructure yet you and others didn't read it to make sure it satisfied the needs of the county or residents. 3 The county reviewed and approved all documents that were part of the public process and enforceable by the County. We did not create, review, or approved the private agreement. That was done outside of the County's review. It was completed and signed prior to any county staff seeing it. We set the requirements for a joint infrastructure project that collectively handled all of your combined traffic impacts. How the individual parties chose to fund those improvements, the timing, and stipulations were privately agreed upon. - we will provide you with a pre read prior to the meeting on May 10 or 11 Thank you, I will ask Jeanne to make sure all sides can attend the meeting in a an open and transparent environment. - your " dear friend" is Bruce Anderson I do not appreciate the mischaracterization. Bruce is a professional colleague and I respect him immensely. You will find that Bruce and I have had many professional disagreements. I will treat both parties without bias and make my recommendation to the Board based on past practice. - Trinity has a plan to ask the developer of Vanderbilt Commons to pay for the turn into the plaza which is already his requirement. But the plan is to take it one step further to to eliminate the need forever for more improvements such as a traffic signal even if it is warranted and becomes a safety issue. I have asked Trinity to evaluate a left turn lane in lieu of a signal. - it is our belief the residents do not have any cost burden for signalization or road improvements as they lie with the county and or developers. The burden you currently have or do not have will be based on approved ordinances, transfers of obligations through contracts, and private agreements. I cannot make a determination based on the limited discussion we have had. Respectfully, Nick Casalanguida Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@Colliergov.net 239-252-8383 <image001.png> From:Terrie [mailto:terrie.abrams@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 11:03 AM To: CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: BBR phone call- May 5 , 2017 Hi Nick, Thanks for the call this morning. Just a quick recap. 4 , -the county required the developers to address road infrastructure yet you and others didn't read it to make sure it satisfied the needs of the county or residents. -we will provide you with a pre read prior to the meeting on May 10 or 11 -your " dear friend" is Bruce Anderson - Trinity has a plan to ask the developer of Vanderbilt Commons to pay for the turn into the plaza which is already his requirement. But the plan is to take it one step further to to eliminate the need forever for more improvements such as a traffic signal even if it is warranted and becomes a safety issue. - it is our belief the residents do not have any cost burden for signalization or road improvements as they lie with the county and or developers. We look forward to meeting with you and finalizing an appropriate quick action to resolve this mess. Kind Regards, Terrie 630.244.4800 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 5 LykinsDave From: CasalanguidaNick Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:18 PM To: Steve Bracci Cc: FrenchJames; BosiMichael; PattersonAmy; ScottTrinity; rbanderson@napleslaw.com; George Vuko; Keith Gelder (kgelder@stockdevelopment.com); KlatzkowJeff; AshtonHeidi; LykinsDave Subject: RE: Black Bear Ridge/Wolf Creek PUD/ Pristine Drive Attachments: 2017.05.12 Letter to Nick Casalanguida (Black Bear Ridge).pdf Steve: I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I asked our staff to review the questions and confirm some of the information prior to responding. In your letter you requested a response to five specific questions. Please review the responses below. 1. Yes,the County still holds securities related to the Construction, Maintenance and Escrow Agreement for Subdivision Improvements, specifically line items identified in the Engineer's Opinion of Probable Costs for Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements. The amount would not be released until verification that the improvement has been completed. At that time, the security would be able to be reduced by the corresponding line item. 2. Securities have not been released per answer# 1. 3. The improvements were not included in the County's contract plans. The developers were to contract with the design engineer on their own, once they had plans they were to contract directly with the construction contractor. The County project was awarded in July 2004. In February 2007,the developers contracted with the design engineer to prepare the intersection improvement plans. The plans were completed in April 2007 and provided to the developers to negotiate with construction contractor. It is our understanding that the developers could not come to an agreement with the contractor and the improvements did not proceed forward. Please keep in mind as we had discussed,once the County issues a notice to proceed for a construction project, we do not permit additional contractors to do work within the same area without the consent of the prime contractor. The developers did not have the benefit of soliciting bids if they were to construct concurrent with the County's project. The County did not have any funds to complete the developer required intersection improvements. Therefore, no funds were available to the County to complete the project. 4. The County has not typically demanded escrow deposits to complete development required improvements. During this timeframe,the Country was hit hard with the Great Recession, in which our community was not spared from these financial impacts. At that time the County was focused on maintaining our economy that revolved around tourism and construction. Furthermore, it was not the County's obligation to complete the intersection improvements. If the County were to demand the escrow and take the responsibility of completing this project,the County would have also taken on any cost overruns or change orders with no mechanism to be able to recover the funds from the developer.The County could have held certificates of occupancy for the development until the improvements were completed. However,that has not been a preferred method as it would hinder new homeowners who may already have loans in place from being able to get into their new constructed home. 5. We cannot speak for Stock. County staff has proposed a significantly lower cost solution in lieu of signalization for the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Pristine. As previously suggested, it may be beneficial for the Black Bear Ridge Homeowner's Association to discuss this item with the developer, Stock Development and the other owners of the PUD. Keep in mind, as stated above,the County will not release the securities related to the escrow agreement until the improvements are 1 completed. It is important to remind everyone that we have no authority to modify the private agreement nor can we or should we use our administrative authority to force such modification. It was also helpful to get confirmation that the owners knew in advance as part of the title commitment that the obligation was disclosed in their purchase documents. Perhaps the recent meeting has opened up communication lines for all parties to come to the table to be able to complete the intersection improvement and put the concern to rest. We were happy to bring all the parties together to facilitate a transparent discussion. I encourage you to continue dialogue with Stock Development and your neighbors to achieve a solution. Please submit any additional inquires to Trinity Scott in order to facilitate a quicker response. Respectfully, Nick Casalanguida Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@Colliergov.net 239-252-8383 �,ewCawMty Cc: Jamie French, GMD Deputy Department Head Michael Bosi, Planning&Zoning Director Amy Patterson, Capital Project Planning Trinity Scott,Transportation Planning Manager Bruce Anderson Barry Ernst George Vukobratovich Jorge Cepero Keith Gelder From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:07 AM To: CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; ScottTrinity<TrinityScott@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff <JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: Black Bear Ridge/Wolf Creek PUD/ Pristine Drive Nick—it has been almost a week without a response from you on the questions in the attached letter. Kindly either respond, or let us know when we can expect a response. The answers to these questions are materially important to Black Bear Ridge's consideration of other pending matters that affect their community. Sincerely, Steve Bracci From:Steve Bracci Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:12 AM To: nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; trinityscott@colliergov.net; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Subject: Black Bear Ridge/Wolf Creek PUD/ Pristine Drive Dear Nick (with copy to others)— 2 Please see attached letter on behalf of Black Bear Ridge. Sincerely, Steve ,k Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 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 STEVEN J. BRACCI, PA A Professional Association Attorney at Law 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102 Naples,Florida 34109 Ph: (239)596-2635 Fax: (239)431-6045 steve@braccilaw.com www.braccilaw.com May 12, 2017 VIA E-MAIL ONLY nickcasalanguidacolliergov.net Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager Collier County Government 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, Florida 34112-5746 Re: Intersection of Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road Black Bear Ridge Property Owner's Association, Inc. Wolf Creek PUD Vanderbilt Commons PUD Dear Mr. Casalanguida: Please accept this letter on behalf of Black Bear Ridge in follow-up to the meeting held on May 11, 2017,to discuss the intersection of Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The proposal at the meeting was that county staff will support the construction of a westbound right-in turn lane, and an eastbound left-in turn lane, with requisite median modifications, and no traffic signal. The belief is that a traffic light will not be warranted now or in the future,and that this could be determined with finality by county board action at this time. Any future traffic signal would be a general county expense based on safety issues, under its police powers. At the meeting, you recounted a narrative about how during the Great Recession, the Vanderbilt Beach Road contractor who was working on the widening of VBR passed by the Pristine Drive intersection without making any turn lane improvements or median modifications because the Wolf Creek PUD developer had not yet paid for any intersection improvements. Thus, the developer (nebulously defined) should now pay for those improvements. Estimates at the meeting were that the Pristine/VBR intersection improvements could cost $200,000 on the low end, and $600,000 at the high end. The county, in turn, would pay additional Buckstone Road intersection improvements or modifications. You have previously asserted in writing, and at yesterday's meeting, that the county does not typically require developer sureties for future intersection improvements that may or may not be warranted in the future. Thus the reason why no surety was required by any Wolf Creek PUD developers in this instance. Nick Casalanguida,Deputy County Manager Page 2 These narratives seemingly contradict the enclosed Construction,Maintenance and Escrow Agreement for Subdivision Improvements (Infrastructure), dated August 30, 2005,by and between Buckstone Estates, LLC, and the Board of County Commissioners. You may know that Buckstone Estates was the original Black Bear Ridge developer. That escrow agreement, and its attached exhibit, specifically provide that $3,057,906.50 was placed in escrow by the Black Bear Ridge developer for certain "Required Improvements." This includes $270,000 line itemed for Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements including turn lanes, signalization, drainage and lighting. The escrow agreement further provided that the developer had 12 months to complete the improvements, failing which, the county could make immediate demand for the escrow funds and complete the work itself. This revelation prompts the following questions: 1. Is the $270,000,plus 10%retainage and any interest, still sitting in escrow? 2. If not,who released it and where did it go? 3. Why is the county stating that no funds were available when the VBR road contractor was working on the widening of VBR at the intersection of Pristine Drive? 4. Why did the county not make demand on the escrow deposit and instruct the contractor to install the intersection improvements at that time? 5. Why is Stock—who was at that meeting—not acknowledging the existence of these escrowed funds? It would appear that the escrowed funds more than adequately cover Black Bear Ridge's (theoretical) portion of any intersection improvements at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Its residents should not have to pay twice. Your prompt response to this letter is much appreciated. Sincerely, S EVEN J. BRACCI, PA Steven J. Bracci, Esq. cc: client Encl. LykinsDave From: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 11:18 AM To: CasalanguidaNick; ScottTrinity Cc: FrenchJames; BosiMichael; PattersonAmy; rbanderson@napleslaw.com; George Vuko; Keith Gelder (kgelder@stockdevelopment.com); KlatzkowJeff;AshtonHeidi; LykinsDave Subject: RE: Black Bear Ridge/Wolf Creek PUD/ Pristine Drive Nick, please be sure that the information Trinity circulates includes a breakdown of what elements the county proposes to pay for. This is part of what was requested below. Steve From: CasalanguidaNick [NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 10:53 AM To: Steve Bracci; ScottTrinity Cc: FrenchJames; BosiMichael; PattersonAmy; rbanderson@napleslaw.com; George Vuko; Keith Gelder (kgelder©stockdevelopment.com); KlatzkowJeff; AshtonHeidi; LykinsDave Subject: RE: Black Bear Ridge/ Wolf Creek PUD / Pristine Drive Trinity, Please respond to Steven's questions 1 and 2. Please send the group a copy of the proposed improvements subject to a traffic safety and circulation study. Steven, My intention was to be fair to all parties and make sure there is complete transparency. I will not meet with any side individually to discuss this issue as you have requested. My staff may meet with them to go over specific project questions or traffic concerns. I will ask them to make sure that any information is shared accordingly. I smiled at Ms.Abrams when I made that comment as it was not meant to insult her. She has misinterpreted my comments several times in our communications. She is due my full respect as a taxpayer. I'm not going to comment on the remaining points in your email as they are subjective and not material. Respectfully, Nick Casalanguida Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@Colliergov.net 239-252-8383 From:Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 9:51 AM To: CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Cc: FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; PattersonAmy <AmyPatterson@colliergov.net>; ScottTrinity<TrinityScott@colliergov.net>; rbanderson@napleslaw.com; George Vuko <George@welshfl.com>; Keith Gelder(kgelder@stockdevelopment.com) <kgelder@stockdevelopment.com>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>; LykinsDave 1 <DaveLykins@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Black Bear Ridge/Wolf Creek PUD/ Pristine Drive Nick—your below response prompts a few more questions/comments so that Black Bear Ridge can understand this situation: 1. Has the county been working with the developer on these escrow items? If so: a. Who has it been working with? b. What communications has the county recently had with the developer on the release of any escrow line items? c. When was the last partial release from the escrow account, and for which line items? 2. Were the escrow funds that were line itemed for the Pristine Drive intersection based on the entire amount of the Pristine Road intersection improvements, or just Black Bear Ridge's pro rata portion? a. If the latter, did any other area developers establish surety escrows for Pristine Drive intersection improvements? b. If so, please provide copies. c. Please provide copies of any estimates of probable cost in the county's possession for the Pristine Drive line items as referenced in the Buckstone Estates escrow agreement. 3. The county's narrative has changed in your e-mail below. At the May 11 meeting, you stated that during the Great Recession,the road contractor was working on Vanderbilt Beach Road. When they got to the area of Pristine Drive, no developer funds were available, so the contractor just passed it by without making improvements. This is also what Terrie Abrams heard you say,thus her follow-up public records request to Trinity Scott asking for the roadway construction plans. 4. Black Bear Ridge notes your repeated theme of"buyer beware" with respect to the responsibility of the public to review and rely upon documents in the public records. This argument works in two directions 5. For the sake of everyone's clarity, please articulate in writing what the county proposes as a solution to the issue of Pristine Drive intersection improvements. Finally, three other comments that my client would like to convey with respect to the May 11 meeting are: (i) while you will likely couch it as the county trying to get everyone in the room together, the May 11 meeting was requested by Black Bear Ridge with you, Nick, and yet you felt compelled to instead invite a posse. Black Bear Ridge expects the same in return—specifically, that the county will reach out and invite Black Bear Ridge and its counsel to any meeting with a developer or property owner that has a direct or indirect impact on Black Bear Ridge. This includes meetings with Stock, George Vuko/Vanderbilt Commons, and Vanderbilt Preserve. (ii) During the meeting, you called my client, Ms.Terrie Abrams, a "worthy adversary." Ms. Abrams is none- too-pleased. Such a statement belies your role as a Deputy County Manager. When did a tax paying resident of Collier County trying to protect one's property rights and correct an apparent inequity become an "adversary" of the county? 2 (iii) At the May 11 meeting, my client also noted staffs institutional bullying whereby there was an implicit threat—and explicit suggestion --that the board of county commissioners might get angry with my client for protecting its property rights, and thus take board action contrary to the public interest simply to spite my client. If you wish me to elaborate further on this point, please let me know. Sincerely, Steve Bracci Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: CasalanguidaNick [mailto:NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net] Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:18 PM To:Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Cc: FrenchJames<iamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; PattersonAmy <AmyPatterson@colliergov.net>; ScottTrinity<TrinitvScott@colliergov.net>; rbanderson@napleslaw.com; George Vuko <George@welshfl.com>; Keith Gelder(kgelder@stockdevelopment.com) <kgelder@stockdevelopment.com>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>; LykinsDave <DaveLykins@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Black Bear Ridge/Wolf Creek PUD/ Pristine Drive Steve: I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I asked our staff to review the questions and confirm some of the information prior to responding. In your letter you requested a response to five specific questions. Please review the responses below. 1. Yes,the County still holds securities related to the Construction, Maintenance and Escrow Agreement for Subdivision Improvements, specifically line items identified in the Engineer's Opinion of Probable Costs for Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements. The amount would not be released until verification that the improvement has been completed. At that time, the security would be able to be reduced by the corresponding line item. 2. Securities have not been released per answer# 1. 3. The improvements were not included in the County's contract plans. The developers were to contract with the design engineer on their own, once they had plans they were to contract directly with the construction contractor. The County project was awarded in July 2004. In February 2007,the developers contracted with the 3 design engineer to prepare the intersection improvement plans. The plans were completed in April 2007 and provided to the developers to negotiate with construction contractor. It is our understanding that the developers could not come to an agreement with the contractor and the improvements did not proceed forward. Please keep in mind as we had discussed, once the County issues a notice to proceed for a construction project,we do not permit additional contractors to do work within the same area without the consent of the prime contractor. The developers did not have the benefit of soliciting bids if they were to construct concurrent with the County's project. The County did not have any funds to complete the developer required intersection improvements. Therefore, no funds were available to the County to complete the project. 4. The County has not typically demanded escrow deposits to complete development required improvements. During this timeframe,the Country was hit hard with the Great Recession, in which our community was not spared from these financial impacts. At that time the County was focused on maintaining our economy that revolved around tourism and construction. Furthermore, it was not the County's obligation to complete the intersection improvements. If the County were to demand the escrow and take the responsibility of completing this project,the County would have also taken on any cost overruns or change orders with no mechanism to be able to recover the funds from the developer.The County could have held certificates of occupancy for the development until the improvements were completed. However,that has not been a preferred method as it would hinder new homeowners who may already have loans in place from being able to get into their new constructed home. 5. We cannot speak for Stock. County staff has proposed a significantly lower cost solution in lieu of signalization for the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Pristine. As previously suggested, it may be beneficial for the Black Bear Ridge Homeowner's Association to discuss this item with the developer, Stock Development and the other owners of the PUD. Keep in mind, as stated above, the County will not release the securities related to the escrow agreement until the improvements are completed. It is important to remind everyone that we have no authority to modify the private agreement nor can we or should we use our administrative authority to force such modification. It was also helpful to get confirmation that the owners knew in advance as part of the title commitment that the obligation was disclosed in their purchase documents. Perhaps the recent meeting has opened up communication lines for all parties to come to the table to be able to complete the intersection improvement and put the concern to rest. We were happy to bring all the parties together to facilitate a transparent discussion. I encourage you to continue dialogue with Stock Development and your neighbors to achieve a solution. Please submit any additional inquires to Trinity Scott in order to facilitate a quicker response. Respectfully, Nick Casalanguida Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@Colliergov.net 239-252-8383 Cc: Jamie French, GMD Deputy Department Head Michael Bosi, Planning&Zoning Director Amy Patterson, Capital Project Planning Trinity Scott,Transportation Planning Manager Bruce Anderson Barry Ernst George Vukobratovich Jorge Cepero 4 Keith Gelder From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:07 AM To: CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguidac colliergov.net>; ScottTrinity<TrinityScott@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff <JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: Black Bear Ridge/Wolf Creek PUD/ Pristine Drive Nick--it has been almost a week without a response from you on the questions in the attached letter. Kindly either respond, or let us know when we can expect a response. The answers to these questions are materially important to Black Bear Ridge's consideration of other pending matters that affect their community. Sincerely, Steve Bracci From:Steve Bracci Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:12 AM To: nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; trinityscott@colliergov.net; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Subject: Black Bear Ridge/Wolf Creek PUD/ Pristine Drive Dear Nick (with copy to others)— Please see attached letter on behalf of Black Bear Ridge. Sincerely, Steve ,., • Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 5 LykinsDave From: faye.collettsutton@louisville.edu Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 9:48 PM To: LykinsDave; SaundersBurt Subject: Excellent Town Hall Meeting Tonight Commissioner Saunders and Dave: I attended your Town Hall Meeting tonight and thought it was an excellent summary of planned development and transportation issues that our area is and will be experiencing as we grow. I learned a lot and felt it was well worth my time just for that reason. It was evident that you and all the staff in attendance had spent substantial time in preparation as your all's presentations and handouts were informative and very much appreciated. I thought that the openness and receptiveness on the part of the staff to listen intently and engage openly with the residents in attendance promoted constructive dialogue (one of your specialties Commissioner). I know that the staff are used to opinionated and annoyed citizenry voicing their concerns but I was particularly appreciative with how they/you encouraged residents to speak and share their concerns/issues and become engaged in the political process. You/staff documented tonight that you are there to find balanced solutions for the problems that come with growth and governing. Living in the area, Black Bear Ridge, I, too, am concerned that the County continue to focus on solving transportation issues that are already impacting our mobility, safety and pocketbooks especially as it relates to loop or connector roads that move traffic off of and between Immokalee and Vanderbilt Beach Roads. Again,thank you for hosting the Town Hall tonight, and I hope that you will host additional forums in the future. I would appreciate it if you would forward this to the staff in attendance tonight as I appreciate them giving up their evening to share and engage with us. Faye DR. FAYE SUTTON Professor Emerita 7311 Acorn Way Naples, FL 34119 239-405-5199 AMERICAN PROUD 1 LykinsDave From: ScottTrinity Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 3:33 PM To: CasalanguidaNick; Steve Bracci Cc: FrenchJames; BosiMichael; PattersonAmy; rbanderson@napleslaw.com; George Vuko; Keith Gelder (kgelder@stockdevelopment.com); KlatzkowJeff; AshtonHeidi; LykinsDave Subject: RE: Black Bear Ridge/Wolf Creek PUD/ Pristine Drive Attachments: Exhibit_B_5-9-17.pdf; Exhibit_A_5-9-17.pdf; Black Bear Ridge 1 CME OPC.PDF All, I have coordinated with our Growth Management Department team for the responses to questions 1 and 2. In addition, attached please find the concepts that were discussed at the prior meeting. 1. Has the county been working with the developer on these escrow items? If so:The Growth Management Department Development Review Division (DRD) has been going through the final acceptance process for Black Bear Ridge and this issue has come up as needing to be resolved prior to final acceptance. Other improvements associated with the subdivision have been found to be in substantial compliance. This issue is the only remaining item to complete the final acceptance of the Black Bear Ridge subdivision. DRD inspections staff has had several conversations with Stock and their Engineer(JREvans) regarding the requirement for off-site improvements. a. Who has it been working with? DRD staff have made Stock and their Engineer aware of this issue. b. What communications has the county recently had with the developer on the release of any escrow line items?There has not been a request for release of any escrowed funds since the original reduction in 2006. c. When was the last partial release from the escrow account, and for which line items?Sept. 18, 2006 was the last reduction. Line items reduced at that time included some off site improvements as well as the standard, paving, drainage and utilities completed. This has been the only reduction in the original security of$3,057,906.50. Remaining funds in escrow= $816,420.81 2. Were the escrow funds that were line itemed for the Pristine Drive intersection based on the entire amount of the Pristine Road intersection improvements, or just Black Bear Ridge's pro rata portion?The engineer's probable opinion of costs identifies turn lanes (WB, RT, EB, LT), signalization, side drain drainage and lighting for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersections Improvements which appear to be for all the required off site improvements. a. If the latter, did any other area developers establish surety escrows for Pristine Drive intersection improvements? DRD staff is unaware of other developer's established securities for these improvements. b. If so, please provide copies. c. Please provide copies of any estimates of probable cost in the county's possession for the Pristine Drive line items as referenced in the Buckstone Estates escrow agreement.The engineer's probable opinion of costs(attached as part of the CME) identifies turn lanes(WB, RT, EB, LT), signalization, side drain 1 drainage and lighting for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersections Improvements associated with Black Bear Ridge Phase One totaling$270,000.00. Best Regards, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning Manager Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division Telephone: 239.252.5832; Fax: 239.252.6610 trinityscott@colliergov.net From: CasalanguidaNick Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 10:53 AM To: Steve Bracci; ScottTrinity Cc: FrenchJames; BosiMichael; PattersonAmy; rbanderson@inapleslaw.com; George Vuko; Keith Gelder (kgelder(astockdevelopment.com); KlatzkowJeff; AshtonHeidi; LykinsDave Subject: RE: Black Bear Ridge/ Wolf Creek PUD / Pristine Drive Trinity, Please respond to Steven's questions 1 and 2. Please send the group a copy of the proposed improvements subject to a traffic safety and circulation study. Steven, My intention was to be fair to all parties and make sure there is complete transparency. I will not meet with any side individually to discuss this issue as you have requested. My staff may meet with them to go over specific project questions or traffic concerns. I will ask them to make sure that any information is shared accordingly. I smiled at Ms. Abrams when I made that comment as it was not meant to insult her. She has misinterpreted my comments several times in our communications. She is due my full respect as a taxpayer. I'm not going to comment on the remaining points in your email as they are subjective and not material. Respectfully, Nick Casalanguida Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@Colliergov.net 239-252-8383 er Ca►�nt�y From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 9:51 AM To: CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida(a@colliergov.net> Cc: FrenchJames<iamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; PattersonAmy <AmyPatterson@colliergov.net>; ScottTrinity<TrinityScott@colliergov.net>; rbanderson@napleslaw.com; George Vuko <George@welshfl.com>; Keith Gelder(kgelder@stockdevelopment.com) <kgelder@stockdevelopment.com>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>; LykinsDave <DaveLykins@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Black Bear Ridge/Wolf Creek PUD/ Pristine Drive 2 Nick—your below response prompts a few more questions/comments so that Black Bear Ridge can understand this situation: 1. Has the county been working with the developer on these escrow items? If so: a. Who has it been working with? b. What communications has the county recently had with the developer on the release of any escrow line items? c. When was the last partial release from the escrow account, and for which line items? 2. Were the escrow funds that were line itemed for the Pristine Drive intersection based on the entire amount of the Pristine Road intersection improvements, or just Black Bear Ridge's pro rata portion? a. If the latter, did any other area developers establish surety escrows for Pristine Drive intersection improvements? b. If so, please provide copies. c. Please provide copies of any estimates of probable cost in the county's possession for the Pristine Drive line items as referenced in the Buckstone Estates escrow agreement. 3. The county's narrative has changed in your e-mail below. At the May 11 meeting, you stated that during the Great Recession,the road contractor was working on Vanderbilt Beach Road. When they got to the area of Pristine Drive, no developer funds were available, so the contractor just passed it by without making improvements. This is also what Terrie Abrams heard you say,thus her follow-up public records request to Trinity Scott asking for the roadway construction plans. 4. Black Bear Ridge notes your repeated theme of"buyer beware" with respect to the responsibility of the public to review and rely upon documents in the public records. This argument works in two directions 5. For the sake of everyone's clarity, please articulate in writing what the county proposes as a solution to the issue of Pristine Drive intersection improvements. Finally,three other comments that my client would like to convey with respect to the May 11 meeting are: (i) while you will likely couch it as the county trying to get everyone in the room together,the May 11 meeting was requested by Black Bear Ridge with you, Nick, and yet you felt compelled to instead invite a posse. Black Bear Ridge expects the same in return—specifically,that the county will reach out and invite Black Bear Ridge and its counsel to any meeting with a developer or property owner that has a direct or indirect impact on Black Bear Ridge. This includes meetings with Stock, George Vuko/Vanderbilt Commons, and Vanderbilt Preserve. (ii) During the meeting, you called my client, Ms.Terrie Abrams, a "worthy adversary." Ms. Abrams is none- too-pleased. Such a statement belies your role as a Deputy County Manager. When did a tax paying resident of Collier County trying to protect one's property rights and correct an apparent inequity become an "adversary" of the county? (iii) At the May 11 meeting, my client also noted staff's institutional bullying whereby there was an implicit threat—and explicit suggestion --that the board of county commissioners might get angry with my client for 3 protecting its property rights, and thus take board action contrary to the public interest simply to spite my client. If you wish me to elaborate further on this point, please let me know. Sincerely, Steve Bracci \* Ps. fir Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: CasalanguidaNick [mailto:NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net] Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:18 PM To: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Cc: FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; PattersonAmy <AmvPatterson@colliergov.net>; ScottTrinity<TrinityScott@colliergov.net>; rbanderson@napleslaw.com; George Vuko <George@welshfl.com>; Keith Gelder(kgelder@stockdevelopment.com) <kgelder@stockdevelopment.com>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>; LykinsDave <DaveLvkins@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Black Bear Ridge/Wolf Creek PUD/ Pristine Drive Steve: I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I asked our staff to review the questions and confirm some of the information prior to responding. In your letter you requested a response to five specific questions. Please review the responses below. 1. Yes,the County still holds securities related to the Construction, Maintenance and Escrow Agreement for Subdivision Improvements, specifically line items identified in the Engineer's Opinion of Probable Costs for Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements. The amount would not be released until verification that the improvement has been completed. At that time, the security would be able to be reduced by the corresponding line item. 2. Securities have not been released per answer#1. 4 3. The improvements were not included in the County's contract plans. The developers were to contract with the design engineer on their own, once they had plans they were to contract directly with the construction contractor. The County project was awarded in July 2004. In February 2007,the developers contracted with the design engineer to prepare the intersection improvement plans. The plans were completed in April 2007 and provided to the developers to negotiate with construction contractor. It is our understanding that the developers could not come to an agreement with the contractor and the improvements did not proceed forward. Please keep in mind as we had discussed, once the County issues a notice to proceed for a construction project,we do not permit additional contractors to do work within the same area without the consent of the prime contractor. The developers did not have the benefit of soliciting bids if they were to construct concurrent with the County's project. The County did not have any funds to complete the developer required intersection improvements. Therefore, no funds were available to the County to complete the project. 4. The County has not typically demanded escrow deposits to complete development required improvements. During this timeframe,the Country was hit hard with the Great Recession, in which our community was not spared from these financial impacts. At that time the County was focused on maintaining our economy that revolved around tourism and construction. Furthermore, it was not the County's obligation to complete the intersection improvements. If the County were to demand the escrow and take the responsibility of completing this project,the County would have also taken on any cost overruns or change orders with no mechanism to be able to recover the funds from the developer.The County could have held certificates of occupancy for the development until the improvements were completed. However, that has not been a preferred method as it would hinder new homeowners who may already have loans in place from being able to get into their new constructed home. 5. We cannot speak for Stock. County staff has proposed a significantly lower cost solution in lieu of signalization for the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Pristine. As previously suggested, it may be beneficial for the Black Bear Ridge Homeowner's Association to discuss this item with the developer, Stock Development and the other owners of the PUD. Keep in mind, as stated above,the County will not release the securities related to the escrow agreement until the improvements are completed. It is important to remind everyone that we have no authority to modify the private agreement nor can we or should we use our administrative authority to force such modification. It was also helpful to get confirmation that the owners knew in advance as part of the title commitment that the obligation was disclosed in their purchase documents. Perhaps the recent meeting has opened up communication lines for all parties to come to the table to be able to complete the intersection improvement and put the concern to rest. We were happy to bring all the parties together to facilitate a transparent discussion. I encourage you to continue dialogue with Stock Development and your neighbors to achieve a solution. Please submit any additional inquires to Trinity Scott in order to facilitate a quicker response. Respectfully, Nick Casalanguida Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@Colliergov.net 239-252-8383 f ew Lcrw�ty Cc: Jamie French, GMD Deputy Department Head Michael Bosi, Planning&Zoning Director Amy Patterson, Capital Project Planning Trinity Scott,Transportation Planning Manager Bruce Anderson 5 Barry Ernst George Vukobratovich Jorge Cepero Keith Gelder From:Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:07 AM To: CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; ScottTrinity<TrinityScott@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff <JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: Black Bear Ridge/Wolf Creek PUD/ Pristine Drive Nick—it has been almost a week without a response from you on the questions in the attached letter. Kindly either respond, or let us know when we can expect a response. The answers to these questions are materially important to Black Bear Ridge's consideration of other pending matters that affect their community. Sincerely, Steve Bracci From: Steve Bracci Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:12 AM To: nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net;trinityscott@colliergov.net; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Subject: Black Bear Ridge/Wolf Creek PUD/ Pristine Drive Dear Nick (with copy to others)— Please see attached letter on behalf of Black Bear Ridge. Sincerely, Steve 4 f _ 4} r Y+ t` +t Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 6 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. 7 �1 1 I 1 I 111 a tixf 1 .I II r I 1 ,I IIi I I f u 1�i I e h p , / w 1 4 14. 1. 1 1 -10 1 O s , m 4„, ,, a t�+, I i e PRISTINE DRIVE ____..... ..,...___,,r..: - i Ivr Z k l I 4,,,, ._ S y ( i —0. - H ,1 m n in z o t - ri >;I 1 o 11 r D .7., I I yy Z O rI,I "- III c ff S 1'IIF I ` =� O > C 1 ". Z C) 1;- > z COTi H r °j s 1 3 II; 0 p;`t CO fZ0 i i t'.. ilft m m p #Iii; ,— 11 I I,_ = C m 111; 1: a mI 1 0 C iii C 1' . Z III r 0 r 111 1 , T D N Z iii ; I;' e Z m �. viii iI ' r D1111 ''I ,1 I1 Z I I I I 11 I m gJ!i /' 1I ill 7 li;i i i i q 1111 I11 fl M ti !y 11 LI4: ' 11 73 0I iii ''' 0 t1 iii l i I, m1 i CJ I!11 I1� II I i 1 1 1 Y LI It'II i y i i i! Y ,'Ill if 1 e F, UCKSTONE . ,4. CP D 11/11 R M � I11 11 1 ,-- I` 1i wI1 I I it yti` \ I I'fi I Ill'llyI'Iill i 1 0 1111 A "' ;IIII1 o I i i 1 9/Ii i i qi I11 u i1 1 O II 1111 z ilii 'II I I' I II:1 1ri I II 1 .. /� 81, I I I 1 II I q�' � .' 11 I I I 1 111 ,y r, 1 p 1 n 91.1 I,ii i II 1. a' .', I I I I D i� AI I 1 i/ II I I I/.. _ . R .a' air (7)r a Z ': ; m m Z Z , m e I Z W ,,.� O ,wD Z �' mm C) IA I IW I yl lig K� 11 IIS PRISTINE DRIV Z ° .1 _ 44 ViiFt(IL * A� m II �'1 I Y,' - — — L.--.7.--, `, I'"--I./ A lr n: , 1 T 1 I .., RI r A. I __ ( $1 4 mco g IT :I 1 . In .11 ti j 7:11,I � 1 I III> NW } V, 1 • ' g-• • ....dell AM ' -0 11111 Aa '"'S�"- ' O III 1 NI 8 �— _ ----,,,i -1 III ' 4 1 ii 4' s �c k 1 , ii r 0 n __ D Ili lilt! -ti BUCKSTONE DRIVE g a IIL! d ........i: , l'..11 ll ;I ,I in, nr/. z B I Ili I 1 I 1: „ :- 1- -- 1'. ,Evi 4'" + ...;- '-, 1 COLLIER BLVD (CR 951) 1 m , .. - �4"" .I CONSTRUCTION,MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS-(INFRASTRUCTURE) • THIS AGREEMENT entered into this 30' day of August, 2005 by Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (hereinafter "Developer"), THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (hereinafter the "Board"), and Orion Bank, a Florida banking corporation(hereinafter"Lender"). RECITALS ORIGINAL A. Developer has, simultaneously with the delivery of this Agreement, applied for the approval by the Board of a certain plat of a subdivision to be known as: Black Bear Ridge. B. The subdivision will include certain improvements which are required by Collier County ordinances, as set forth in a site construction cost estimate ("Estimate") prepared by Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1. For purposes of this Agreement, the "Required Improvements" are limited to those described in the Estimate. C. Sections 10.02.05 and 10.02.04 of the Collier County Subdivision Code Division of the Unified Land Development Code require the Developer to provide appropriate guarantees for the construction and maintenance of the Required Improvements. D. Lender has entered into a construction loan agreement with Developer dated June 2, 2005 (the"Construction Loan") to fund the cost of the Required Improvements. E. Developer and the Board have acknowledged that the amount Developer is required to guarantee pursuant to this Agreement is THREE MILLION FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50), and this amount represents 110% of the Developer's engineer's estimate of the construction costs for the Required Improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Developer, the Board and the Lender do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Developer will cause the water, sewer, roads, drainage, and like facilities, the Required Improvements, to be constructed pursuant to specifications that have been approved by the Development Services Director within 12 months from the date of approval of said subdivision plat. 2. Developer hereby authorizes Lender to hold THREE MILLION FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50) from the Construction Loan, in escrow, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The urreut Orion Bank account number for this account is 8500006690. 3. Lender agrees to hold in escrow THREE MILLION FIFTY-SEVEN SVP ss� mos-- THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50) from the Construction Loan, to be disbursed only pursuant to this Agreement. Lender acknowledges that this Agreement shall not constitute a draw against the Construction Loan fund, but that only such funds as are actually disbursed, whether pursuant to this Agreement or a provision of the Construction Loan, shall accrue interest. 4. The escrowed funds shall be released to the Developer only upon written approval of the Development Services Director who shall approve the release of the funds on deposit not more than once a month to the Developer, in amounts due for work done to date based on the percentage completion of the work multiplied by the respective work costs less ten percent (10%); and further, that upon completion of the work, the Development Services Director shall approve the release of any remainder of escrowed funds except to the extent of $305,790.65 which shall remain in escrow as a Developer guaranty of maintenance of the Required Improvements for a minimum period of one (1) year pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the Agreement. However, in the event that Developer shall fail to comply with the requirements of this Agreement, then the Lender agrees to pay to the County immediately upon demand the balance of the funds held in escrow by the Lender, as of the date of the demand, provided that upon payment of such balance to the County, the County will have executed and delivered to the Lender in exchange for such funds a statement to be signed by the Development Services Director to the effect that: (a) Developer for more than sixty (60) days after written notification of such failure has failed to comply with the requirements of this agreement; (b) The County, or its authorized agent, will complete the work called for under the terms of the above-mentioned contract or will complete such portion of such work as the County, in its sole discretion shall deem necessary in the public interest to the extent of the funds then held in escrow; (c) The escrow funds drawn down by the County shall be used for construction of the Required Improvements engineering, legal and contingent costs and expenses, and to offset any damages, either direct or consequential, which the County may sustain on account of the failure of the Developer to carry out and execute the above-mentioned development work; and, (d) The County will promptly repay to the Lender any portion of the funds drawn down and not expended in completion of the said development work. 5. Written notice to the Lender by the County specifying what amounts are to be paid to the Developer shall constitute authorization by the County to the Lender for release of the specified funds to the Developer. Payment by the Lender to the Developer of the amounts specified in a letter of authorization by the County to the Lender shall constitute a release by the County and Developer of the Lender for the funds disbursed in accordance with the letter of authorization from the County. 6. The Required Improvements shall not be considered complete until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been furnished to be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director for compliance with the Collier County Subdivision Regulations. 7. The County Manager or his designee shall, within sixty(60) days of receipt of the statement of substantial completion, either: a) notify the Developer in writing of his preliminary approval of the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of his refusal to approve the improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the Developer must fulfill in order to obtain the Director of the Required Improvements. However, in no event shall the Development Services Director refuse preliminary approval of the improvements if they are in fact constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. 8. Should the funds held in escrow be insufficient to complete the Required Improvements, the Board, after duly considering the public interest, may at its option complete the Required Improvements and resort to any and all legal remedies against the Developer. 9. Nothing in this Agreement shall make the Lender liable for any funds other than those placed in deposit by the Developer in accordance with the foregoing provision; provided, that the Lender does not release any monies to the Developer or to any other person except as stated in this Escrow Agreement to include closing the account or disbursing any funds from the account without first requesting and received written approval from the County. 10. The Developer shall maintain all Required Improvement for one year after preliminary approval by the County Manager or his designee. After the one year maintenance period by the Developer and upon submission of a written request for inspection, the Development Services Director shall inspect the Required Improvements and, if found to be still in compliance with the Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Lender's responsibility to the Board under this Agreement is terminated. The Developer's responsibility for maintenance of the Required Improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for and by the County. 11. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the Developer and the Lender. (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank-Signatures Begin on Next Page) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and the Develoer have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized-representatives this so"( day o July, 2005. DEVELOPER: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC, a Florida limited liability company ice+— P By: Catalina Land Group, (P IRMS1r T6?. Y .17 ' a Florida corporation, its Manager (Print Name: ft'D-XL, et. _t ) By: `,42s� W L. Hoover,President LENDER: Orion Bank, J� a Florida banking corporation • L/A4 . I r' ' 6.-- ` By:CZ ' Mil Rat", Name: let rg r e X !1C "-L.L[..e•L (Print Name:. Brandy A. Rosc}1Ke Title: S MG,c Pre ei'tts,bar- . ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA Q. 1.411; .JAOCK,Clerk -"‘` ..' '',..el,%, • %.---il_t_a_, LA), CjiritSk. qt 'C1eci ` Chairman 1 et .-s i ga �-u ar, �✓ .1j - "FE--1) Li . CyL proved 4s40(form and legal sufficiency: � A• r Assistant County A :lvey JIvn, 1 x,12. A. ..nc eD i . S Ctrg Clien FWdaNkwer8I. Nor RAF Sub:Im WINM:Co MwKttme.td Etrrott Apttirtent for SuFdititian Improtetzms dor Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Off-site Improvements (PRISTINE DRIVE) %PROGRESS BUDGET Site Work Quantity Unit Price Total AS OF 945-06 CONSUMED 1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 AC $3,500.00 $7,000.00 100% $7,000.00 2 Silt Fence 2,800 IF $1.50 $4,200.00 100% $4,200.00 3 Fill 8,500 CY $9.00 $76,500.00 100% $76,500.00 4 Final Grade 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00 100% $6,500.00 5 Valley Gutter 2,700 IF $5.50 $14,850.00 100% $14,850.00 6 8"Litnerock Base(compacted and primed) 4,800 SY $7.50 $36,000.00 100% $36,000.00 7 12"Stabilized Subgrade 5,750 SY $2.25 512,937.50 100% $12,937.50 8 3"Asphalt 4,800 SY $8.50 540,800.00 60% $24,480.00 9 Signing&pavement markings 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00 0% $0.00 10 Sodding 5,800 SY $1.50 $8,700.00 0% $0.00 11 5'Wide Concrete Sidewalk 1,500 SY $16.50 $24,750.00 0% $0.00 12 4"Limerock(under sidewalk) 1,500 SY $4.50 $6,750.00 0% $0.00 13 Maintenance of Traffic 1 IS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 100% $2,500.00 Sub-total 5247,987.50 Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements Quanti Unit Price Total I Turn Lanes Complete(WB Rt,EB Li) 2 IS $40,000.00 $80,000.00 0% $0.00 2 Signalization I IS $130,000.00 $130,000.00 0% $0.00 3 Side Drain Drainage(4 DBI,DBL run 36") 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 100% $35,000.00 4 Lighting 1 IS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 0% $0.00 Sub-total • $270,000.00 Sanitary Sewer 1 uanti Unit Price Total 1 8"PVC Force Main(C-900 Class 200) 1,400 LF $20.00 $28,000.00 100% $28,000.00 2 8"Plug Valve w/Box 2 EA $1,380.00 $2,760.00 100% $2,760.00 3 Hot Tap Future 16"Force Main on VBR 1 LS $5,500.00 $5,500.00 100% $5,500.00 Sub-total $36,260.00 Water Main I uanti Unit Price Total Hot Tap Existing 30"Reinf Cone Water Main 1 _ (or ah=j/b and tap new prop 24"wm) 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 100% $35,000.00 2 12"PVC Water Main(CL 200) 1,400 IF $25.50 $35,700.00 100% $35,700.00 3 12"Gate Valve w/Box 2 EA $1,500.00 $3,000.00 100% $3,000.00 4 Fire Hydrant(Complete Assembly) 2 FA $2,400.00 54,800.00 100% $4,800.00 5 Permanent Bacterial Sample Point 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 100% $1,000.00 6 Temporary Bacterial Sample Point 1 EA $900.00 $900.00 100% $900.00 7 Air Release Valve 2 EA $1,550.00 $3,100.00 100% $3,100.00 Sub-Total $83,500.00 Drainage Quanti Unit Price Total 1 Control Structure 1 EA $4,000.00 $4,000.00 100% $4,000.00 2 15"RCP 100 LF $23.00 S2,300.00 100% $2,300.00 3 18"RCP 350 IF $25.00 $8,750.00 100% $8,750.00 4 24"RCP 1,200 IF $34.00 $40,800.00 100% $40,800.00 5 Valley Gutter Throat Inlet 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000.00 100% $12,000.00 6 Grate Inlet 4 EA $1,700.00 $6,800.00 100% $6,800.00 7 Junction Box 8 EA $1,850.00 $14,800.00 100% $14,800.00 8 15"Flared End Section 1 EA $900.00 S900.00 100% $900.00 Sub-Total $90,350.00 Off-SiteTotals $728,097.50 59% $430,077.50 9/15/2006 Black Bear Rid2e-Phase I Budget Paving , %PROGRESS BUDGET Item-Pavin_ Quanti Unit Price Total AS OF 9-15-06 CONSUMED 1 Valley Gutter 8,546 LF $5.50 $47,003.00 100% $47,003.00 2 Valley Crossing 300 LF $15.00 $4,500.00 100% $4,500.00 3 Type"A"Curb 210 LF $7.25 $1,522.50 100% $1,522.50 4 Type"D"Curb 0 IF $8.70 $0.00 100% $0.00 5 1 1/2"Asphaltic Concrete(Type S-III)(2 lifts) 9,159 SY $5.20 $47,626.80 50% $23,813.40 6 6"Iimerock Base(compacted and primed) 9,159 SY $6.75 $61,823.25 100% $61,823.25 7 12"Stabilized Subgrade 12,272 SY $2.25 $27,612.00 100% $27,612.00 8 5'Concrete Sidewalk 4,745 SY $16.50 $78,292.50 0% $0.00 9 4"Limerock(under sidewalk) 4,745 SY $4.50 $21,352.50 0% $0.00 10 Signing&Pavement Markings 1 LS $7,000.00 57,000.00 0% $0.00 11 Sodding(sod strip behind curb) 950 SY $1.50 $1,425.00 0% $0.00 Total $298,157.55 $166,274.15 9/15/2006 Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Wastewater Collection System %PROGRESS BUDGET Item-Sanitary Sewer Quantity Unit Price Total AS OF 9-15.06 CONSUMED i1 Pump Station(complete) 1 EA $85,000.00 $85,000.00 80% $68,000.00 2 6"C900 DR 14 PVC Force Main 100 LF $12.50 $1,250.00 100% $1,250.00 3 Force Main Connection to Offsite(includes valve) 1 LS $3,000.00 33,000.00 100% $3,000.00 4 8"PVC Sanitary Sewer(0-6'Cut) 820 LF $18.00 S14,760.00 100% $14,760.00 5 8"PVC Sanitary Sewer(6-8'Cut) 800 LF $20.00 $16,000.00 50% $8,000.00 6 8"PVC Sanitary Sewer(8-10'Cut) 520 LF $22.00 $11,440.00 100% $11,440.00 7 8"PVC Sanitary Sewer(10-12'Cut) 480 LF $25.00 $12,000.00 100% $12,000.00 8 8"PVC Sanitary Sewer(12-14'Cut) 510 1F $30.00 315,300.00 100% $15,300.00 9 8"PVC Sanitary Sewer(14-16'Cut) 515 LF $35.00 $18,025.00 100% $18,025.00 10 TrcnchingforRock 3,645 LF $22.00 $80,190.00 100% $80,190.00 11 Manhole 4'Diameter(0-6') 3 EA $2,160.00 $6,480.00 100% $6,480.00 12 Manhole 4'Diameter(6-8') 3 EA $3,100.00 $9,300.00 100% $9,300.00 13 Manhole 4'Diameter(8-10) 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00 100% $3,500.00 14 Manhole 4'Diameter(10-12') 3 EA $5,400.00 $16,200.00 100% $16,200.00 15 Manhole 4'Diameter(12-14`) 2 EA $6,300.00 $12,600.00 100% $12,600.00 16 Manhole 4'Diameter(14-16') 2 EA $7,500.00 $15,000.00 100% $15,000.00 17 Single Sewer Service 67 EA $500.00 $33,500.00 100% $33,500.00 18 Television Inspection(Preliminary&Final) 3,645 LF $3.00 $10,935.00 100% $10,935.00 19 20 Total $364,480.00 $339,480.00 9/15/2006 Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget D rainage System %PROGRESS BUDGET Item-Drains:e Quanti Unit Price Total AS OF 9.15-06 CONSUMED --.-...... I Control Structure 2 EA $4,000.00 $8,000.00 100% 58,000.00 2 15"RCP 964 LF $23.00 $22,172.00 100% $22,172.00 3 18"RCP 822 LF $25.00 $20,550.00 100% $20,550.00 4 24"RCP 235 LF $34.00 $7,990.00 100% $7,990.00 5 30"RCP 1,220 LF $52.50 $64,050.00 100% $64,050.00 6 36"RCP 1,100 LF $70.00 $77,000.00 100% $77,000.00 7 42"RCP 210 LF $83.00 $17,430.00 100% $17,430.00 8 12"HDPE 2,914 LF $18.00 352,452.00 100% $52,452.00 9 24"Flared End Section 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 100% $1,000.00 10 30"Flared End Section 1 EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00 100% $1,200.00 11 36"Flared End Section 2 EA $1,500.00 $3,000.00 100% $3,000.00 12 42"Flared End Section 1 EA $1,900.00 $1,900.00 100% $1,900.00 13 Valley Gutter Throat Inlet 21 EA $2,000.00 $42,000.00 100% $42,000.00 14 Grate Inlet 15 EA $1,700.00 $25,500.00 100% $25,500.00 15 Junction Box 5 EA $1,850.00 $9,250.00 100% $9,250.00 16 Yard Drain 13 EA 5400.00 $5,200.00 0% $0.00 17 Type X Inlet 14 EA $485.00 $6,790.00 0% $0.00 100% $0.00 Total 065,484.00 $353,494.00 9/15/2006 $lack Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Potable Water Distribution System %PROGRESS BUDGET - Item-Water it uanti Unit Price Total AS OF 8-15.06 CONSUMED I Single Water Service 4 EA $400.00 $1,600.00 100% $1,600.00 2 Double Water Service 48 EA $700.00 $33,600.00 100% $33,600.00 3 Water Service Casings 834 LF $4.00 $3,336.00 100% $3,338.00 3 Hot Tap Existing Water Main on Inner Loop Rd(contingent loop) I EA $4,500.00 54,500.00 100% $4,500.00 4 Water main connection to North-South Rd 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 100% $3,000.00 5 8"PVC Water Main(CL 150) 4,860 LF $16.00 $77,760.00 100% $77,760.00 6 8"Gate Valve w/Box 5 EA $1,280.00 56,400.00 100% $6,400.00 7 Fire Hydrant(Complete Assembly) 11 EA $2,400.00 526,400.00 100% $26,400.00 8 Permanent Bacterial Sample Point 4 EA $1,000.00 $4,000.00 100% $4,000.00 9 Temporary Bacterial Sample Point 4 EA $900.00 $3,600.00 100% $3,600.00 10 8"Temporary Blow Off 2 EA $1,500.00 $3,000.00 100% $3,000.00 11 Air Release Valve 4 EA $1,550.00 $6,200.00 100% $6,200.00 Total $173,396.00 $173,396.00 Page 1 of l 9/15/2006 Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Earthwork&Cleating %PROGRESS BUDGET Item-Earthwork&Clearin: 1 uanti Unit Price Total AS OF 9-15-06 CONSUMED 1 Clearing and Grubbing 32.3 AC $3,500.00 $113,120.00 100% $113,120.00 2 Clearing and Grubbing(Exotics Removal) 7.19 AC $5,000.00 $35,950.00 100% $35,950.00 Lake Excavation(includes blasting and rock 3 crushing) 74,600 CY $4.00 $298,400.00 100% $298,400.00 4 Fill Placement and Grading 74,600 CY $2.00 $149,200.00 100% $149,200.00 5 imported Fill Placed and Graded 25,400 CY n/a $0.00 100% $0.00 6 Sod(lake banks) 6,700 SY $1.90 $12,730.00 50% $6,365.00 Erosion Control-Silt Fence 8,200 LF $1.50 $12,300.00 100% $12,300.00 Total $621,700.00 $615,335.00 Page 1 of 1 9/15/2006 LykinsDave From: Keith Gelder <kgelder@stockdevelopment.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:46 PM To: CasalanguidaNick; rbanderson@napleslaw.com; ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com; George Vuko; Steve Bracci; Terrie Abrams Cc: KlatzkowJeff; ScottTrinity; FrenchJames; LykinsDave Subject: RE: Zoning applications at Vanderbilt and Collier Nick, We are agreeable to covering the Black Bear portion under the cost sharing agreement, assuming that George Vuko is willing to construct the VBR westbound right turn lane. I believe that is the case based on our prior discussions.Thanks. Keith Gelder Vice President of Land Stock Development, LLC 2639 Professional Circle,Suite 101 Naples, FL 34119 (239)449-5227 Office (239)280-6504 Cell Email: kgelder@stockdevelopment.com From: CasalanguidaNick [mailto:NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net] Sent: Wednesday,June 14, 2017 10:55 AM To: rbanderson@napleslaw.com; ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com; Keith Gelder<kgelder@stockdevelopment.com>; George Vuko <George@welshfl.com>; Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com>; Terrie Abrams<terrie.abrams@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; ScottTrinity<TrinityScott@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; LykinsDave <DaveLykins@colliergov.net> Subject: Zoning applications at Vanderbilt and Collier All: It is my understanding that Stock has agreed to cover Black Bear Ridge's commitments to cost sharing. Let me know if I am incorrect. With that out of the way, I understand that George's project will continue to go through the public process and there may be another owner that is moving forward also. My outstanding item is the final configuration, construction timing, and identification of obligated parties for the access improvements without a signal. Please continue to work with Trinity to resolve this item. Thank you, Nick Casalanguida Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@Colliergov.net 239-252-8383 ar C:rnsnty 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 LykinsDave From: marc alien <mallencny@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:07 AM To: SaundersBurt Subject: PDI PL20160000404 Wolf Creek RPUD preserve reduction Re: PDI - PL20160000404: Wolf Creek RPUD by the developer of parcels 3b and 9 to reduce preserves Dear Commissioner Saunders, First, let me be clear, I am not against development, nor against this developer's right to develop his property. The property is, however, within a residential planned urban development, Wolf Creek, and development should be in keeping with the agreements and ordinances associated with the RPUD, and should be compatible with other developments in the RPUD. There are two facets to this proposal; preserve reduction and residential density, although only one is being considered with this PDI. To be properly assessed the project should be looked at in its entirety, not piecemeal. Please consider the following: With respect to the preserves: There were no excess preserves or excess native vegetation prior to 2013 when a portion of Palermo Cove was brought into the Wolf Creek PUD. As noted in the CCPC minutes of 3/21/2013, it was intended that there be no net effect upon preserves and no increase in density in the Wolf Creek RPUD and Palermo Cove PUD, with the 2013 WCPUD and Palermo Cove amendments. Thus, the apparent "excess" should not have existed. The excess appeared when the required preserves for SFWMD, which were more than the county's native vegetation requirement, were added to the WCPUD map exhibit as preserve, but not taken into account as required native vegetation because only a portion was required. The excess was an unintended consequence and a reduction should therefore not be approved. With respect to the density: While other county PUDs may have dwelling unit "pools", Wolf Creek 1 dwelling units have been allocated to the different parcels in the PUD, initially by a Cost Sharing Agreement* and subsequently by county ordinances** as parcels were added to the PUD. This was done with intent as documented in county minutes*** CCPC minutes from 3/21/13 document specific allocation of dwelling units to prevent them from being "used" by other parcels, which would change density Parcel 9 was allocated 80 dwelling units for a density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre when it was brought into the Wolf Creek RPUD in 2007 - that was the request and that was what was approved Parcel 3b, representing N 60% of the original parcel 3, would be allocated N 24 dwelling units based upon acreage and the original 2004 CSA post transfer of units to Falls at Portofino Thus, parcels 3b and 9 have N 104 dwelling units allocated to them under current ordinances and agreements - this yields an allocated density of N 3.3 du's/acre Comparable densities are: Black Bear Ridge - density 1.97 built out (N 4 allocated) Raffia(WCPUD portion) - — 2.3 Adjacent Island Walk - 3.04 Falls at Portofino - ' 6.85 - these were initially high end town homes selling in the N $500K range - the allocation plan was for one higher density • multifamily project on the periphery of WCPUD with lesser density elsewhere There is a companion application PL20160000157 which proposes a 215 dwelling unit project with N 88% of the buildings being 7-9 flex units - this is a high density row house type development of N 6.82 du's/acre - more than twice the approved/allocated density. parcels 3b and 9 do not have 215 dwelling units allocated to them and there is no request to increase the approved density the developer is claiming density he does not appear to have At every juncture, the county has historically upheld the allocation of dwelling units within the Wolf Creek PUD, documented in meeting minutes and ordinances. The county should be consistent and continue to recognize the historical allocation and not allow a claim for unused but allocated dwelling units within the PUD. 2 In conclusion please consider: The PDI for a requested reconfiguration of the preserve map and decrease in preserves should not be approved as there should be no "excess" preserves. The companion PL 20160000157 should not be approved as the requested number of dwelling units is more than twice that allocated. The high density row house type development is not compatible with the original plan and not in keeping with the majority of the adjacent developments. Note that there is no opposition to development according to parameters of the original plan; a development of —104 dwelling units, which may be multifamily, possibly with a mild or moderate increase in density, but this proposal is not that. We have met with the developer in an attempt to work out something mutually agreeable. They have been unwilling to consider any compromise in their proposed density, to which they are not entitled according to allocation. Thank you for your time, Respectfully, Marc Allen, 7347 Acorn Way, Naples FL *OR 3635 PGS 1672-1699, recognized as valid and enforceable as documented in various county meeting minutes **Ordinances 2007-46 and 2013-37 ***BCC minutes 5/22-23/2007, CCPC minutes 3/21/13 3 l LykinsDave From: Sheri Roberts <roberts.sheri@att.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 1:29 PM To: SaundersBurt Cc: LykinsDave Subject: Further Sereno Grove Update Commissioner Saunders, As a follow-up to my June 12, 2017 email to you, yesterday afternoon WCI/Lennar's requested changes to the Sereno Grove plat and construction plans ("PPL") were approved through the "insubstantial change" process (application #20170001891), despite the significance of the changes. Under Sec. 250-58 of the Code of Laws we should have 30 days from the June 20, 2017 decision to file an appeal. We advised county staff that we intend to do so. Despite this, county staff (Matt McLean) advised us that the PPL will be on the agenda to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners next Tuesday, June 27, 2017, essentially shortening our 30-day appeal period on the ICP to less than one week. We have advised Mr. McLean that we feel that scheduling the PPL for next Tuesday is premature and potentially prejudices our due process rights. However, we have received no indication that he intends to change it. Can you ask the staff why they would not continue the PPL until after the BCC, as the Board of Zoning Appeals, considers the ICP appeal? If the decision to approve the ICP is overturned, the PPL is not ready for consideration by the BCC. In the past week, I also learned additional information about the redesign of the wastewater and water distribution systems that was proposed and permitted to be accomplished as an "insubstantial change." WCI/Lennar now plans to run the water and sewer connections all the way from Livingston Road which is approximately 1/4 mile west of their western property line (not counting the access road), rather than use the Wilshire Lakes stub-outs that are approximately 12.5 feet to the east, as originally planned. The changes also include: (1) using an unlooped water system which can result in poor water quality, (2) a very long distance between the water connection and the further points in Sereno Grove which will likely result in poor water pressure, (3) a privately-managed sanitary sewer system that includes an extremely long force main and low flow, and (4) the removal of the requirement for a standby generator for the wastewater pumping station, which removes any protection against failure. According to the updated opinion of WCI/Lennar's own engineer, as filed with the county, the probable additional construction cost for the proposed changes have been increased and will be approximately $290,000, which does not seem to include engineering, permitting or filing fees or the additional costs of ongoing maintenance of the wastewater facilities. All of this was approved as an "insubstantial change." If you have any questions or would like to schedule a call or a meeting to further discuss these developments, please let me know. Kind regards, Sheri Roberts roberts.sheri(a�att.net Mobile: (248) 630-5194 1 LykinsDave From: Sheri Roberts <roberts.sheri@att.net> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 8:02 AM To: SaundersBurt Cc: LykinsDave Subject: Sereno Grove Update Commissioner Saunders, Once again, I would like to thank you for taking the time to meet with me, my attorney Patrick White and my neighbors on February 27, 2017. Unfortunately, since that date things have not improved with respect to the development known as Sereno Grove at Pelican Marsh. As you had instructed, we advised WCI/Lennar that we had spoken to a county commissioner who was not willing to approve their plat and construction plans for Sereno Grove ("PPL") in their current configuration, and that the alternative plan developed by our engineer was considered to be reasonable. Despite that, WCI/Lennar continues to refuse to speak to us and now they are seeking approval of changes to the PPL through a process termed an insubstantial change ("ICP"), in order to avoid ever needing to do so (application #20170001891). However, the changes they propose are not "insubstantial;" they involve a complete re-work of the wastewater and water distribution facilities for the PPL. In mid-April, we were advised that management of WCI/Lennar would meet with us to discuss our concerns, and we were asked to contact Rhonda Brewer, their VP of Community Development to set up a meeting. I called and spoke to Ms. Brewer on April 19, 2017, and provided her with my availability: three full days and one half-day from April 25 through May 2. She thanked me for being so flexible, but then never contacted me to arrange a meeting. Instead, WCI/Lennar was working behind the scenes to reconfigure their PPL, a revised version of which was filed with the county on May 24 along with their request for an ICP. As a reminder and by way of background with respect to the ICP, in February WCI/Lennar's agent contacted the President of our Wilshire Lakes Homeowners Association ("HOA") to discuss WCI/Lennar's need for easements to tie into the Wilshire Lakes stub-outs for water and sewer, since no such easements exist. Use of the Wilshire Lakes stub-outs was assumed in WCI/Lennar's initial plans as it would be the most cost-effective location and alignment to provide the necessary water and sewer connections for Sereno Grove. Our HOA President advised the representative that she wanted to include me and my neighbors in the discussion so that we could resolve all issues at the same time. Initially, they agreed and a meeting was set for February 13. However, on or about February 3 when WCI/Lennar's counsel advised ours that WCI "did not see any benefit to discussing" our request to address the location of the roadway in their plan, WCI/Lennar's agent canceled that February 13 meeting. In connection with their current application for an ICP, WCI/Lennar has significantly reconfigured their plan, spending time and money to do so, to avoid speaking to our HOA about those stub-outs and, therefore, avoiding the need to address the positioning of their roadway so close to my home and the homes of my neighbors. In their revised PPL, they intend to move the utility connection locations to Livingston Road, which would result in a connection that is approximately % mile west of their westernmost property line, rather than use the Wilshire Lakes stub-outs which are located approximately 10 feet east of their easternmost property line. They then argue that, because of the time required to obtain the necessary permits to do this, it would create a "considerable economic hardship to the developer" and they propose that the wastewater facilities will now be privately owned and maintained. They claim that this self-imposed hardship entitles them to obtain approval for these changes through the ICP process. It is obvious that their unwillingness to address the positioning of their roadway so close to our homes has nothing to do with either the cost of doing so or the time necessary to re-work their plans. The alternative plan created by our engineer (who we hired and paid) was provided to WCI/Lennar in January; the changes 1 included in that plan would be relatively cost neutral to WCI/Lennar and would also retain the same number of lots of equivalent size. Rather than consider that configuration, WCI/Lennar has wasted time developing a new plan moving the water and sewer tie-ins for which, according to their own engineer's opinion, the probable additional construction cost will be over $210,000 (which does not seem to include permitting, filing or engineering fees, or ongoing costs of maintaining the wastewater facilities). For less cost, they could have used our engineer's plan and been in a position to obtain approval of their PPL at the May 9 Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") meeting, as originally scheduled. They chose not to do so, but are now requesting an abeyance from legal requirements in order to obtain approval for their significantly revised plan. WCI/Lennar has made it clear that they are more interested in spending their time and money pushing for approval for a PPL that is inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding land uses, than make any attempt to recognize the rights of existing homeowners. Under their proposed PPL, myself and my neighbors will be forced to bear disproportionate negative impacts from the WCI/Lennar development in excess of those borne by any other homeowners within Sereno Grove or the surrounding communities. This is a blatant disregard for the property interests of existing homeowners. At this point, the ICP application has not yet been approved; it is currently in a resubmittal phase according to the county website. Last week John Houldsworth advised me that the PPL is tentatively on the BOCC schedule for June 27. Thank you for taking the time to review this and remain engaged on this issue. If you have any questions or would like to schedule a call or a meeting to further discuss these developments, please let me know. Kind regards, Sheri Roberts roberts.sheri@att.net Mobile: (248) 630-5194 2 a v 0 val 3 t M��N r. LL • r' MI tO Nt1 f� N CD L x--CO CO MI 01 ~ ANN 4 /4_ LD O ry.-m C 3 ..-NN l , �eM-NN H N o• 'ICV O1N al O D v,- z mvr tn MI 1.1JrclOr- LL ��N L � CO Lc; p 1 SC /L a� CD MOr NM �,3 1,1 CVO-1.M. --1-- f`�,�—1 .max. y.a �N� I I LTi O CO� � j, �, I ; i 1 II i r Im• i ; ! I ,n I I I I 1 f ' � I I I I cc i ISI Ic m I! ra � I ri Cal I I E• v g m 1 io I a, G E n i it U ° v iff cv v, u C • CV p v j1v I o tm nfV z V m ,1N N 61 m• O N n an v I vI li v, c r �I rn #Ni v VE ' Im 1c 61 me uu C M ' c O i o s- w E O '° 7-i- -,:, u E v E u ` V ? y C Bi 7.1 J u N -412, I m▪ u 3 0 1 _ o w m m N m E ! mO. 0 VI « = of v at, a u �n o f c $ 1.1 E m 1 E u `m a '^ f m N E O1 ,o I U °m O 1 0 ( E S m g e a s 2 0 U U v o+ m j Qm Ia 6 , at. v m h. M a 'u XMN l7 C j mOl N I N Nm N d •E •.•Y O) axO G Od 0 N Na m N r dY1 N E m (U N •LL w` � Lc u c N i10 D q u� e mm on Q m Ecw'' a � � 0411 >- ~ 1:-. O N V it-0 .c Cop m �c = C � 01 mNmp Z r u vy a` O O1 � � m7 O Sv E u1d du m ! CVv, Ct L 2 . i� a 1--- CO al O N r-- N m "Cru1 l0 c