The URL can be used to link to this page

Ex-parte - McDaniel 07/11/2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 I f Board of Zoning Appeals 8.A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.Judith S. Palay and 92 other property owners within the Cocohatchee Bay Neighborhood Communities,filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the administrative approval of building separations, building widths, building dwelling units, and building heights in the Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA-PL20160002242 for Kalea Bay aka Kinsale Condominium Phases II-VI.The subject property is located at the northwest and northeast corners of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South and Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170002165] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings 7Correspondence ®e-mails �alls Met with: Diane Rupnow, Brad Schiffer, Donna Reed-Caron, Diane Ebert, and Karen Bishop Information from staff Multiple emails 5 1)- FilsonSue From: Kmggal <kmggal@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 12:08 PM To: SolisAndy; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: kmggal@aol.com Subject: Kales Bay issues I have been on vacation with my family but thought it important to get to the commissioner meeting today and have my say. I was scheduled on Spirit Airline flight 943 from Atlantic City NJ (ACY) to Fort Myers (RSW) on July 10th, 2017. I was at the airport and it was delayed again and again. We finally got on the plane around 8:00 p.m. We were then asked to deplane because the flight was cancelled. (There were no available flights today to get me there in time.) The main criteria I used when buying my home in Naples was that I wanted to be West of Rt. 41 and have a southwest view of the beautiful Naples sunsets. It looks to me I will lose my view of the beautiful Naples sunsets if the Kalea Bay buildings are approved with major changes proposed disregarding the PUD Agreement entered into in 2008, and without any knowledge of or any input from the surrounding communities or I believe the Collier County Commissioners. I feel this developer makes agreements with communities without ever thinking they will have to keep their part of the bargain. The PUD Agreement entered into in 2008 gave this developer well over$30 million worth of extra units of condos in exchange for leaving the property adjacent to me as a golf course or preserve in perpetuity. Then in 2014 they tried to have this PUD agreement opened up to build houses on this property. They already got several extra floors and added condo units that they would be selling each for millions of dollars and were trying to renege on their end of the deal. Now they want to build a wall of concrete blocking my view by building these high rise buildings 50 feet wider and many feet closer together which is the equivalent of the size of adding a another high rise building. The PUD Agreement entered into in 2008 did not account for any of these changes and the surrounding communities were never informed. I also believe the commissioners were not made aware of any of these changes. I am asking each of you to please take into consideration what we have given up to this developer and what he has promised and seems not to keep his end of the bargain. Kathleen Gallagher 849 Carrick Bend Cir. #201 Naples, Fl 34110 1 FilsonSue Subject: Diane Rupnow-402-580-1545 and Brad Schiffer and Donna Reed-Caron re Cocohatchee Bay/Lodge Abbot Settlement Agreement Location: BCC Office Start: Mon 3/20/2017 11:30 AM End: Mon 3/20/2017 12:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: McDanielBill PDF ` 'tel Lodge_Abbott_S...Cocohatchee Bay Summary and Ti... Dear Sue, I would like to meet with Commissioner McDaniel as soon as possible to talk to him about the Cocohatchee Bay PUD which includes a Golf Course and the Kalea Bay Condo Towers. Since Commissioner McDaniel might not be familiar with this development, I will attach a brief history to this message. I will also attach a copy of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement which clearly states terms that we would like the current County Commissioners to enforce. Thank you! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 i FilsonSue Subject: Diane Ebert 593-1103 regarding Kalea Bay and Wilshire Lakes Location: BCC Office Start: Mon 7/3/2017 1:30 PM End: Mon 7/3/2017 2:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: McDanielBill 1 FilsonSue Subject: Karen Bishop 825-732 regarding Kalea Bay Location: BCC Officer Start: Mon 7/3/2017 2:00 PM End: Mon 7/3/2017 2:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: McDanielBill 1 eSir e CONCRETE & MASONRY, INC. July 11, 2017 Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 Re: Kalea Bay Tower Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: This letter comes to you from a concerned contractor that has operated in Naples for over thirty years. It was with great excitement that we prepared for the Kalea Bay project post a recession during which many construction contractors, including Allen Concrete,had to lay off thousands of employees. When we were awarded the concrete portion of the Kalea Bay project, we hired an able workforce to undertake it. We anticipated that the project duration would be approximately seven years. The project consists of five towers, clubhouse facilities, guest cottages, maintenance building,tennis courts and golf course. We are under notice that there is opposition to the completion of the remaining towers. When construction of tower#2 was delayed, we had to lay off several employees and reduce the hours of several others. We have tried to hold-on, but if this project does not move forward or is delayed any more, we will be forced to lay-off more employees and/or cut more hours. These employees are the same ones that fuel our local economy with their spending. Projects such as Kalea Bay attract both seasonal and permanent residents who also contract miscellaneous local trades i.e. air conditioning contractors,painters, Allen Page 1 of 2 6301 SHIRLEY STREET • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 • OFFICE (239) 566-1661 •FAX (239) 566-8515 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:59 AM To: 'Andy Cathey' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Phase 2 Mr. Cathey, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 10, 2017 email and the attached letter expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. ate William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Wle-1 Fags WEB PAGE: r From:Andy Cathey[mailto:acathey@rosenmaterials.com] Sent: Monday,July 10,2017 7:58 AM To: McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>;SaundersBurt < ,f ,1€ y ®o$Iiergov.net>; FialaDonna<DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>;SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Phase 2 To the Collier County Commissioners, I have been a resident of Collier County since 1987 and part of the Construction industry since 1989. It has come to my attention that there is some opposition to the 2' phase of Kalea Bay. My company, Rosen Materials, supplies building materials and supplied Kalea Bay Phase 1. During that time we added additional employees that have supported Collier County in many other areas. I am concerned with any decision to stop this project as it will continue to provide our employees (currently at 32) continued employment. The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and growing economy. Thank you for your time! Andy Cathey Regional Manager-West Florida 1 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:39 AM To: 'Aluminum Glass Solutions' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Mr. & Mrs. Lopez, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 10, 2017 email and the attached letter expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. Veil William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Wet P WEB PAGE: — From:Aluminum Glass Solutions [mailto:aluminumglasssolutions@centurylink.net] Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 1:36 PM To: McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay To the Collier County Commissioners, We are a small family owned and locally operated glass &glazing company. We are currently subcontracted by C.R. Smith for the glazing specs at Kalea Bay. We have just learned that there is some opposition to the 2nd phase of Kalea Bay,and naturally we are concerned. An opportunity to participate in such a significant project, not only for our small company, but for so many trades in our community,that have the opportunity to participate,would benefit the whole community as this is a project that would last for many years—creating job opportunities and benefiting our industry. Considering the very hard years the construction industry and Collier County suffered not too long ago, a project of this magnitude is such a positive outlook for companies and their employees. It has truly been a positive experience to be part of this project for our company,as well as others we are sure. On the other hand the tremendous financial hardship for all involved with this project, if halted -would be appalling. Companies such as our own, have prepared themselves- invested in additional insurances, materials and even equipment to fulfill their contract obligations and most importantly provided additional opportunities of employment . Our company, as well as all the others involved and their employees,we are certain, will be immensely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. Thank you for your time and careful considerations. Many Thanks, Juan and Nydia Lopez Aluminum Glass Solutions, Inc. 239-354-1001 office 239-354-1009 fax info@AluminumGlassSolutions.com www.AluminumGlassSolutions.com 2 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:37 AM To: 'Nancy Farnsworth' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Project Ms. Farnsworth, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 10, 2017 email and the attached letter expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Wei WEB PAGE: — From: Nancy Farnsworth [mailto:nancy@acresplumbing.com] Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 3:38 PM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Project Dear Commissioners: Please find attached signatures from 22 of our staff who work construction in Collier County and many who live in the county. Several have worked directly on the Kalea Bay project and are scheduled to work on the upcoming building 2. If the Kalea Bay Project is halted or delayed due to the protesters against this already approved building,we will have to lay people off. Please stand strong against those few part time residents who are against this project. .)valncdi, Nancy P.Farnsworth Vice President Acres&Son Plumbing, Inc. Serca Management, LLC 239-597-5031 239-597-3740 fax 1 PAVES 1' 4' KATHERINE R.ENGLISH Partner Direct dial:(239)336-6249 11JLL \?\,T J1IIf Email•K;�h rzDirect dial:nnur 336- 2 1833 Hendry Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 I P.O. Box 1507,Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1507 1 (239)334-2195 I Fax(239) 332-2243 j)EEttEllF July 7,2017 1111 JUL 07 2017 Board of County Commissioners Mr. Matthew McLean By Collier County,Florida Engineering Services- 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Growth Management Division Naples,FL 34112 Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Collier County Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112-5749 Naples,FL 34112-5746 Re: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Administrative Appeal by Judith S. Palay,et al. Kalea Bay Phases 2-6 PL20160002242 Ladies and Gentlemen: Our firm represents Lodge/Abbott Associates,LLC and Lodge/Abbott Investments Associates,LLC. (collectively,"Lodge/Abbott"),the owners of Cocohatchee Bay PUD.We are co-counsel with Margaret Cooper, Esquire,of Jones Foster Johnston&Stubbs who handled the earlier litigation resulting in the 2008 Settlement Agreement regarding this project. I will be appearing at the appeal hearing on July 11, 2017 on behalf of Lodge/Abbott.Also appearing for Lodge/Abbott will be Karen Bishop of PMS Inc.of Naples,Inc.Ms.Bishop is the project entitlement facilitator. This appeal arises from a challenge to Lodge/Abbott's request for an amendment to a previously issued site development plan(SDP Amendment)for the project authorizing Buildings 2,3 and 5, The original 2008 SDP for which an amendment is sought was approved by staff in the regular course of business. The Appellants make much of the fact that the County and the land owner entered into the Settlement Agreement resolving a dispute over the appropriate approach to a bald eagle management plan for the project. The Settlement Agreement and its provisions are not relevant to the appeal challenging the present amendment to the SDP. The SDP Amendment subject to this appeal is limited in scope and includes only issues normally addressed by staff in the regular course of business. 4632 VINCENNES BOULEVARD,SUITE 101 4524 GUN CLUB ROAD,SUITE 203 CAPE CORAL,FLORIDA 33904 WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33415 (239)542-3148 (561)471-1366 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 2 The purpose of this letter is as follows: To request intervenor and party status for the project owner,Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC.,identified as the owner for the application to the amendment of AR-5284,Phases 2-6. To provide you with historical context of the Cocohatchee PUD and 2008 Settlement Agreement relative to the present SDP Amendment that is the subject of this appeal. To request determination of the standing of the Appellants to take an appeal in the first place. To address the scope of the appeal and identify the limited issues which can be heard in this appeal. To address the authority vested in staff and the standard of review of the Board on an appeal. To address the substantive arguments raised by Appellants. Intervenor/Party Status Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC. is the project owner and holder of the amended site development plan approval(SDP)for Buildings 2,3 and 5,from which this appeal arises.The appeal is a challenge to the decision of County staff approving the requested amendment; however, the appeal directly affects Lodge/Abbott's authorized plans for the phases of the project specifically approved by this SDP Amendment. Lodge/Abbott is an interested and affected party with vested development rights and it should be given party intervenor status and, be allowed to present evidence and argument and cross examine other parties' witnesses. We request confirmation of the same. Historical Overview' of the PUD and the 2008 Settlement PUD History. Collier County Ordinance No. 2000-88 was passed December 12,2000.It approved a planned unit development known as the "Cocohatchee Bay PUD" (the "Subject Property" or "Project"). Attached to the Ordinance was the original PUD document. Attached to the PUD document was a Bald Eagle Management Plan to address bald eagles nesting in an extremely degraded pine tree on a portion of the property that was near the planned residential development. The development committed to provide all required state and federal permits as a requirement of development. The PUD Ordinance authorized 590 residential units in five residential towers and multi-family homes located on a parcel west of the golf course.The ratified PUD constituted a substantial"down zoning"from the prior zoning substantially reducing the number of units and significantly reducing the traffic impacts associates therewith. In addition to the immediately realized reduction of density,there was substantial increase of 1 This historical overview comes from Lodge/Abbott's Petition for Certiorari and Appendix.The Petition and Appendix is submitted separately as part of the record in this Appeal.The Petition contains more details as to the facts.This letter is a brief overview. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E.Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 3 neighborhood open space/conservation areas that would not be otherwise attainable. It was the increase in preservation/open space which garnished the approval of criteria noted in the PUD specifically utilizing the more desirable clustered design type development.By encouraging site design that located most of the units in the five towers,rather than single family or low density multi-family homes,the end result was more open space,,golf course,and preservation areas which now constitute approximately 90% of the 532 acres in the property. The project's preservation commitment is extraordinary. The project's preserve areas total 431.37 acres, including uplands, wetlands and submerged lands. The preservation provided by the project west of Vanderbilt Drive completes the connection for a wetland/waterway preservation area that stretches from Bonita Beach Road to Bluebill Avenue and connects to the State owned lands along the coast. Initial Reliance of Lodge/Abbott. The original applicant for the PUD Ordinance was a contract purchaser,Vanderbilt Partners II,Ltd. Lodge/Abbott later bought Vanderbilt Partners'contract in reliance on passage of the PUD at a purchase price in excess of$32 million was set in reliance upon the passage of the PUD. Lodge/Abbott has also invested substantial time and money toward active development. Also,Collier County required Lodge/Abbott to provide monies ($3,000,000.) for improvements to the bridge, dedicate easements,and provide rights of way on Vanderbilt Drive. Right-of-way was also provided for Wiggins Pass Road as a condition of the PUD. PUD Requirement for a Bald Eagle Management Plan. At the time of PUD approval,a pair of bald eagles had nested in a dead slash pine tree located on the westerly portion of the Subject Property. The LDC and GMP required a Bald Eagle Management Plan which had to comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the USFWS and FFWCC. Collier County GMP and LDC on Species Protection—Deference to State and Federal Permitting. Collier County's GMP(addressing protected species)called for deference to state and federal agency guidelines and their decisions. County staff had no expertise in such matters.The County policies referred to the standards contained in the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and the USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. For bald eagles,the Habitat Management Guidelines called for protective zones around the nest and restricted development activities during the nesting season. In Collier County once there has been a specific ruling by the USFWS and FFWCC,subparagraph(3)of GMP Policy 7.1.2.became the operative standard and deference to the specific ruling.is mandated. Similarly,the County Land Development Code§3.04.02(2005),mandated the owner use the guidelines found hi the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle. The Code repeated the GMP deference to the specific rulings of the state and federal agencies on individual properties,on a case-by-case basis. There was never a proposal to harm the eagles or even to cut down the nest tree. SDP Application. After getting state and federal approvals,Lodge/Abbott submitted site development plans("SDP")for the clubhouse and residential dwelling units to Collier County. The SDP application called for modifications to the site plan and moving of units from the golf course to the tower buildings. Also, the PUD document had a setback requirement between principal structures,calling for half of the sum of the height Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr.County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 4 of the structures. It also provided for staff approval(administratively)for reduced set back between clustered principal structures with a common architectural theme. See Section 3.5 of the original PUD. The new SDP proposed to reduce setbacks between principal structures.The PUD document spells out that the original Master Plan was conceptual only and amendments could be made according to the LDC. The LDC provides for staff approval for such changes. County Response to SDP Submittal. In response to the SDP submittals, Collier County issued a comment letter asserting that the Bald Eagle Management Plan required review by both the EAC and the Planning Commission, as well as final approval by the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC"). Lodge/Abbott was told to file a rezoning petition to amend the PUD Ordinance in order to amend the Bald Eagle Management Plan. The County never took the position that SDP amendments for the project required BCC approval. PUD Amendment Application. Under protest, Lodge Abbott submitted an application for a PUD amendment to modify the Bald Eagle Management Plan. BCC Limited Review to Eagle Plan Only. On September 21, 2004, the BCC voted that the PUD amendment was a limited review—limited solely to the Bald Eagle Management Plan("BEMP"). No other aspect of the PUD was considered. Therefore, density, setbacks, height, etc., were not reconsidered. The County recognized that any changes to these items were administrative in nature and for staff review only. Public Hearing-Vote on BEMP. The BCC voted to deny the application by vote of 4 to 1. The vote of the BCC was limited only to the consideration of the Bald Eagle Management Plan.The denial was based solely on the BCC's conclusion that the County could impose tougher standards than the FFWCC and USFWS and could protect a single pair of eagles rather than the approach mandated by FFWCC and USFWS. The County never took the position during this process that site development plan modifications required public hearings and BCC approval. The Litigation.In response to the decision denying the Bald Eagle Management Plan,Lodge/Abbott filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Circuit Court challenging the BCC's decision and a Bert Harris damage claim for the diminution in value of its property should the court determine that the County had the legal authority to prohibit all development to protect a single pair of eagles. The 2008 Settlement.In 2008,the County and Lodge/Abbott entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement") to resolve the litigation. Aside from the additional monies paid by Lodge/Abbott for County roadway improvements, there are several relevant aspects to the Settlement Agreement to bear in mind: 1 1 1 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo F. Ochs,Jr.County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 5 The Settlement Agreement approved the PUD amendments to change the location of the units into one R zone and to amend the Master Development Plan. Original PUD Rl zone 480 units 44.0 acres R2 zone 90 units 9.7 acres Golf Course 20 units 170.39 acres 590 units total • Amended PUD * R Zone 588 units 53.7 acres Golf Course 2 units 170.39 acres 590 units total *See Amended PUD Paragraph 2.3 and Table I The Settlement Agreement did not address or include approval of the SDP changes calling for the requested reduced setbacks.The Settlement Agreement was,however,contingent upon staff's timely approval of the three SDPs.The County recognized and understood that the review and approval of those three SDPs, including subsequent modifications to those SDPs were considered normal exercises of administrative staff level functions. In other words,approvals of SDPs were not,nor have they ever been matters for the BCC.See paragraph 3 of the SettlementAgreement.a Contrary to Appellants'assertion,the Settlement Agreement did not require or otherwise provide for BCC review of future SDP amendments. It only required BCC approval of changes to the Settlement Agreement itself,which relates to the bald eagle management plan,not site development plans.See paragraph 21 of the Settlement Agreement.3 The Settlement Agreement approved the Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan and removed the requirement that any future amendment to the BEMP required County RAC review.See paragraph 6.9.F. How the County has implemented Settlement Agreement. Since 2008 both the County and Lodge/Abbott have implemented the Settlement Agreement exactly as it reads and as they understood it—that SDP review and approval is a staff administrative matter. This is exactly how every other project in Collier 2 3. The settlement shall be contingent upon three site development plans("SDPs")that Lodge has submitted being approved by the County as well as the development standards set forth in the original PUD and may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR 5283,and AR5284. 3 21. This Agreement and Release may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release.This Agreement and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 6 County is treated under the LDC, whether in PUD zoning or other normal zoning districts. SDP plans are internal to the proj ect and are an administrative matter since the impact externally has been mitigated thru the development criteria established in the approved PUD Ordinance and Collier Land Development Code. Staff review assures that the details comply with the objective PUD standards and the LDC standards. Technical and ordinary discretionary planning matters have been delegated to staff. This is no different than SDP approval by staff for any other zoning districts(whether it be RSF,SMF,Commercial,PUD or otherwise). A public hearing is not required and there was no intent to deviate from that process for the Cocohatchee PUD through the acceptance of the Settlement Agreement. In fact,the following SDP amendments to Cocohatchee Bay have occurred administratively since 2008; Original SDP Phase 1 =AR-5283, June 2008. Subsequent staff approvals: Short Title Description SDP# Approval Date 1 Phase 1A Gatehouse, 1A 20140001382 Oct-14 2 Phase 1B Balance of Ph 1 20150000420 Aug-15 3 Water 13 Water and Sewer public 20150002903 Jan-16 Fire at cottages,trellis,dumpster, 4 SDPI 1 Generator 20160000723 Apr-16 Tennis,pickleball,fire lines club, club entrance,water east club,roof 5 SDPI 2 leaders tower, golf parking,maint 20160002600 Dec-16 parking, island x W/S Record Water and Sewer Record Dwgs 20160002553 6 SDPI Phasing Maint Phasing plan for maint bldg. 20170000649 Feb-17 7 SDPI Misc Revisions Misc "catch-up"revisions 20170001964 Jun-17 Finally,delegation of approval rights to staff for minor changes to the overall development(including the reduction of setbacks for clustered developments with a common architectural theme)is commonplace in Collier County and is not unique to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD.It is called for in the LDC at Section 4.02.04 A. The stated purpose in this code section is to allow internal clustering in an innovative design to accommodate greater open space elsewhere in a planned development.How clustering is achieved is a design feature which is properly reviewed by professional planning staff. The BCC has approved the clustering concept as a policy matter as set forth in the LDC and the details of how to implement that policy are delegated to planning staff Contrary to Appellants' suggestion that the buildings are being crammed onto a small land mass, the total vistas and open space provided by this project are vast(90%of the project)and greatly exceed the code requirements. The impact of the additional reduction in building separation in the SDP Amendment on the existing open space is nonexistent. Further,there is no discernible impact on any perceived external vistas from Vanderbilt Drive at 35 miles an hour or from the north or south of the project. If the buildings were further Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 7 separated,there would be a need to further impact areas previously set aside as preserves to accommodate the development. Standing and Status of Appellants The location of the proposed buildings is significant.They are located as far west into the interior of the property as possible, abutting the westerly wetlands and preserves, to provide the greatest distance from the Vanderbilt Drive right-of-way.The property is bounded on the west by Wiggins State Park and Barefoot Beach County Park and the wetland preserve buffers for those parks. To the east of the project's 159+1- acre golf course parcel is Tarpon Cove PUD. Wiggins Bay PUD,is located south of the golf course parcel and Wiggins Pass Road.To the north of the golf course parcel is Glen Eden,Falling Waters,Bentley Village and Audubon. To the south of the high-rise parcel on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive are the existing mid- to high-rise projects of Aqua, Pelican Isle Yacht Club, Marina Bay,Anchorage,and the Dunes PUD. To the north of the western parcel is Arbor Trace PUD and Egrets Walk. Most of the Appellants live north of the Cocohatchee PUD.Due to their specific locations within their own development projects,the existing substantial landscaping buffers for those projects provide visual screening so that they are not impacted visually by this project. The building separation modification is internal to the Kalea Bay project and addresses the buildings' physical proximity to each other, not to other developments. Moreover the north to south alignment of the buildings means that changes in the building separation as proposed has no visual impact of the vistas from the property to the north. Internal setbacks anticipated by a clustering site design are truly an internal matter -- not a development aspect that burdens any adjoining property owner or neighbor. Pursuant to Section 250-58,an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party may appeal a site development plan. An affected property owner is an owner of property located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is effective. An aggrieved or affected party is a person or group of persons who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth Management Plan,Land Development Code,or Building Code(s).While the alleged adverse interest for an aggrieved or affected party may be shared in common with other members of the community at large,it must exceed the general interest in the community good common to all persons(emphasis added). The Appellants have failed to provide justification for their standing to raise this appeal, either as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party. Prior to hearing the basis of the appeal, as filed, Appellants must establish their standing to bring the appeal either due to proximity to the projector an interest which exceeds the general interests in the community good of all persons. To the extent that one,some or all of the Appellants cannot establish their status as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party,their individual claims should be dismissed for lack of standing. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo B. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 8 Scope of Appeal—What Can Be Heard and What Evidence Can be Relied Upon The Appellants raise nine issues—some of which have nothing to do with the current SDP approval.See for example Issue 7(Restrictive Covenants),Issue 8(Invasive Control),and Issue 9(10 Foot Pathway).These should be stricken from the appeal of the SDP approval as irrelevant and untimely. Secondly,Appellants do not delineate between early SDP amendments for which the time to challenge has expired and the current SDP Amendment subject to this appeal. Appellants' challenge to any decision covered under a prior SDP Amendment that was not earlier challenged is untimely and cannot be considered. Third,Appellants have submitted a"record"of exhibits to which objection is made.Most documents referred to are rank hearsay-letters,newspaper articles,etc.The Appellants' "record" should be stricken and any exhibits submitted at hearing should be ruled upon individually as to admissibility. Most importantly,Appellants rely heavily upon a recommendation by the Planning Commission in 2008 on the Settlement Agreement to remove staffs discretion to administratively reduce setbacks in accordance with that permissible for a clustered development.The BCC rejected this suggestion in 2008.This recommendation was not included in the Settlement Agreement nor can be inserted into the Settlement Agreement by the current BCC under the guise of an appeal of the SDP amendment. Standard of Review The BCC's standard of review for an appeal of an SDP is not addressed in the LDC.Such review should be limited to determining whether staff deviated from the requirements of the LDC and PUD language relevant f to the reduction building setbacks in issuing the amended SDP approval. In both the Settlement Agreement and the LDC, the planning staff is afforded discretion to approve reduced separation between buildings to facilitate clustered developments.The building separation reductions are clearly part of the design elements internal to a planned project which meets the specific clustering goals and criteria of the LDC.These types of design features are not policy decision matters for the BCC,but rather technical,internal design issues more properly heard by the County's professional planning staff.The discretion to address these kinds of design questions has been delegated to staff by LDC and by the PUD documents.Staff acted within the parameters set forth in both documents in deciding to issue the requested amendment to the SDP. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr.County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 9 Substantive Arguments Issue 1. Public Hearing Appellants assert that the Settlement Agreement requires a public hearing and BCC approval before amendment to SDP plans.It does not.In fact,the Settlement Agreement did not call for the BCC to approve the 2008 SDP plans—but only made the Settlement Agreement contingent upon staffs review and approval of the 2008 SDP plans.The Settlement Agreement only modified the PUD Document vis a vis the Eagle Management Plan.Paragraph 21 deals with amending the Settlement Agreement only—not amending future SDPs.The PUD document specifically requires SDP amendments to be reviewed and issued by staff and clearly allows modification to building setbacks to facilitate clustering by staff's administrative action. Issue 2.Building Separation Appellants rely heavily on the Collier County Planning Commission("CCPC")suggestion in 2008 to eliminate the staff's discretion to consider reduced building setbacks to facilitate clustering.This suggestion by the CCPC was not accepted by BCC and is not part of the Settlement Agreement the BCC approved. Contrary to Appellants claims that the buildings are too close,the Collier County LDC specifically sets forth definitions for"cluster"and"cluster development"that provide for closely grouping buildings in order to provide environmental benefits. Indeed, the definitions for those words include the rationale for allowing closely grouping buildings in order to increase open space and reduce impacts to native vegetation and habitat areas while reducing the costs of providing services. 4 Next Appellants argue that staff abused its discretion in approving the reduction of building separation by large percentages and that reductions should be limited to small percentages of the overall building separation requirements. The Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards for the"R" District set forth in Table II of the amended PUD states that the distance between principal structures is 0.5 times the sum of the building heights,subject to Note 3 which states: Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and the walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The plan language of the PUD clearly states that the building separation can be administratively reduced. Further,since the BCC in reviewing and adopting the amended PUD as part of the Settlement 4 LDC Section1.08.02 Cluster:Concentrating or grouping buildings more closely than in conventional arrangements,locating such buildings on a limited portion of a development site,in order to allow for open space or preservation of natural features. Cluster development:A design technique allowed within residential zoning districts or where residential development is an allowable use.This form of development employs a more compact arrangement of dwelling units by allowing for,or requiring as the case may be,reductions in the standard or typical lot size and yard requirements of the applicable zoning district,in order to: increase common open space;reduce the overall development area;reduce alterations and impacts to natural resources on the site;to preserve additional native vegetation and habitat areas;and,to reduce the cost of providing services,including but not limited to central sewer and water. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney • Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 10 Agreement chose not prohibit administrative reductions of building separation nor did it set a limit on administrative discretion to do so. The modification of the building separation by staff is clearly authorized where the walls are not parallel to each other and the language of the amended PUD clearly explains the circumstances which would give rise to that determination(angled,skewed,or offset). Further,clearly the BCC knows how to limit staff discretion for clustering since it adopted limits to building as part of Table 5 of LDC Section 4.02.04. LDC Section 4.02.04 sets forth the design standards for cluster residential design in Subsection(C)Table 5 which clearly limits the reduction of distance between principle structures to no less than 10 feet. However,Subsection F goes on to state that additional reductions may be approved by the Collier County Planning Commission. Clearly,the BCC does limit staff discretion to reducing the building separation to no less than 10 feet. There is no indication in the documents associated with this Project that this limitation applies to the SDP Amendment. In this instance,Lodge/Abbott is entitled to seek administrative approval to reduced building separations pursuant to its amended PUD. Even if the limitation on the reduction of building separation set forth in LDC Section 4.02.04 does apply to the pending SDP Amendment,the building separation reduction authorized in no way approaches the limits set forth in Table 5. Issue 3.Building Widths This is the same argument as Issue 2, but stated in terms of building width rather than building separation.This argument fails for the same reasons set forth above. Issue 4. Guest Suites This issue is not timely raised. Guest suites were approved as part of the original PUD and authorized for construction in earlier SDPs.Guest suites as defined in the LDC and the PUD are not"units"for purposes of calculating density by rule.Guest suites cannot be sold to third parties,but are instead part of the common area amenities for use by all unit owners specifically to accommodate their guest overflow.Further,these units do not include a kitchen which is required for a dwelling units. This issue cannot be addressed again on appeal of approval of an amended SDP for Buildings 2,3 and 5. 5 Collier LDC Section 1.08.02 Definitions: Dwelling(also called dwelling unit):Any building,or part thereof,constituting a separate,independent housekeeping establishment for no more than 1 family,and physically separated from any other rooms or housekeeping establishments which may be in the same structure.A dwelling unit contains sleeping facilities,sanitary facilities,and a kitchen. Guest quarters/guest suites:An attached or detached room or suite,which could be used as a temporary sleeping accommodation, which is integrated as part of the principal use of the property and may contain running water as long as it is not configured or of a size that may accommodate a kitchen. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 11 Issue S. Building Height This is a non-issue. The locating amenities on the roof area of each tower were previously addressed. There is no amenity located on the roof that affects calculation of the building height. The current amenities located on the roof tops are limited to a recreational area that is not enclosed in an air-conditioned space. By code,these amenities are not sufficient to constitute an additional floor for height calculations. Issue 6. Garage Dwelling Unit The proposed building manager's living area in the"SDP Amendment is not within the garage,but in a separate building that is part of the common area for the Project. It is an accessory use,not a unit offered separately for sale,to assure housing for on-site management. Staff's approval of the building manager's living area in the separate building as an accessory use has no effect on the calculation of building height for Buildings 2,3 and 5. The approval is authorized by the PUD provision regarding accessory uses. See Section 3.4.B.3.6 Furthermore,the manager's unit does not count toward density under the applicable LDC regulations and the PUD as an accessory use. Issue 7. Restrictive Covenant This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal.Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to restrictive covenants. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 8. Invasive Control. This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal.Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to invasive control. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 9. Ten Foot Pathway This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal.Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to the ten foot pathway. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. 6 3.4.B.3 Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature to the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Department Director determines to be compatible in the"R"Districts. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 12 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons the appeal filed herein should be denied. Sincerely, PAVESE LAW FIRM .//J By Katherine R. Er}glish MLC/KRE:ebg / cc: Ralf Brookes, Esquire Margaret L. Cooper, Esquire Michael Bosi Karen Bishop FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 10:13 AM To: 'Bret Groos' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Project Mr. Groos, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 7, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 WEB PAGE: — From: Bret Groos [mailto:Bret.Groos@communityelectricfl.comj Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 10:02 AM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Project Good morning, I am reaching out to you all today to express my support for the Kalea Bay project, much like the hundreds of people that have purchased units in the first two buildings we are all very proud of this community. We have been operating in collier county for 45 years and are a strong supporter of this place we call home. We understand that from time to time there is opposition to growth, it's funny how most of it is from people who have moved here and know think no one else should. I am sure you all deal with this very often.That being said,the stalling of this project is starting to have a financial impact on many of the local subcontractors,vendors and suppliers that are involved in the project,all of these businesses supply thousands of jobs in Collier County and have made commitments to the project team to reserve man power and re-sources for the project, so from the owners to the workers there is concern of the starting date of phase 2. Thank you for your attention, hopefully this can be rectified soon. 1 COMMUN ITY.E LECTRIC OFiCOLIR, INC. r ..L imag%d1OSMLng S.RCO 1972 Bret Russell Groos President Office: 239-262-3438 Fax: 239-262-6943 Mobile: 239-253-0807 Bret.Groos@communityelectricfi.com 2 (01(// From: OchsLeo \fri(A./A V To: BrockMarvJo L Cc: CasalanauidaNick;frenchJames;StrainMark Subject: FW:Very disappointed. . . Date: Wednesday,April 19,2017 3:05:41 PM Please hold for my review prior to the scheduled meeting. thanks. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. nc Collier County Manager { Jeoochs@colliergov.net r 1-_C 239.252.8383 From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 2:49 PM To: Diane Rupnow Cc: OchsLeo Subject: RE: Very disappointed. . . I am scheduled to meet meeting with you and the County Manager later this month, and we would be happy to discuss any and all issues with you. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239) 252-2614 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdianePgmail.corn] Sent: Wednesday,April 19, 2017 11:34 AM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkowcolliergov.net> Subject:Very disappointed. . . Dear Mr. Klatzkow, Being denied our right to speak for 3 minutes during Public Comment on a topic not on the agenda at the April 11, 2017 BCC meeting was disappointing. The fact that you chose to NOT give our attorney's letter dated February 7th and addressed to "Collier County"to the Commissioners was disappointing. The fact that the County manager advised Commissioner McDaniel to cancel the appointment to meet with us was disappointing. To be told that the County Manager would have "Nick" set up a meeting for me to meet with the right county staff and then "Nick" never contacting me was disappointing. The fact that Mark Strain, chair of the Planning Commission met with us and said he would research our concerns and find answers to our questions and then 2 days later informing us that he could have no further involvement in this matter because it might become a conflict of interest for him down the road was disappointing. required distances, Rich Yovanovich's argument that these dimensions were clearly shown to neighbors during the PUD review process does not ring true. It is disappointing to learn that building separations of 153'; 126'; 127'; and 341' were approved in the SDPs in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement. Had that been clearly been explained to County Commissioners, I doubt that the Agreement would have been signed. This makes it especially disappointing that County"staff' allowed the buildings to become 50' wider because that reduces the proposed building separations even more to: 109'; 165'; 100'; and 100'. There will be only 72' between parking structures—Unacceptable! Everyone who drives down Vanderbilt Drive will be disappointed to see 5 massive towers WIDER and CLOSER TOGETHER than they should be. Then they will wonder WHO allowed this to happen! It is disappointing and a violation of the Settlement Agreement that County"staff'has allowed the developer to add 12 guest suites as ACCESSORY units when the PUD lists guest suites as PERMITTED uses—NOT ACCESSORY units! It is a violation of the Settlement Agreement that County"staff' have allowed changes to the complete layout of the originally approved SDPs. It is a violation of the Settlement Agreement that County "staff' have allowed a house on the upper level of the garage which is a non-habitable level. It is disappointing that on the plans submitted to the SFWMD it appears that the developer is attempting to add two four plexus to the plans. It is disappointing that the plans the developer submitted to the SFWMD do not match the plans which the County sent to me when I asked for the most current Golf Course plans. It seems to me that plans submitted to the County and SFWMD should match exactly in reference to land usage. We have a Settlement Agreement and it trumps everything. County staff had no authority to make significant changes to the entire layout of the originally approved SDP for Phase 1 without a public hearing. The question is, "What are you and the County Manger going to do about this?" It is possible to achieve his 588 density on the west side of Vanderbilt(still can put 2 on the east side)without making those buildings so close together. It also would have been possible for him to achieve his density without making the buildings 50' wider, but the units would not have been as large and so he would not have been able to make as much money. Paragraph 15 of the Settlement Agreement states that"Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees of any and all claims, causes of action,costs, expenses, attorney's fees or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord.No. 200-88 . . . . So so that mean that the developer can't sue the County if his amendment is denied? Why should we,the whistleblowers in this debate, have to spend over$2,000 to file an Administrative Appeal to get the Commissioners to review something they should be reviewing since they are bound to uphold the terms of the Settlement Agreement? Why should we spend $925 in notification fees to notify ourselves? Why should we have to file an Administrative Appeal and put ourselves in"judicial jeopardy" (according to Mark Strain)when our purpose is to provide County Commissioners with information they should have received from their own staff? Paragraph 25 states, "In this respect,the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release. When I look up that Case No. it shows that it is still pending. You've had almost 9 years to take care of that detail and it is disappointing that it has not been done. According to the Bert Harris Statute 70, both you and the developer should have done that so that the 20th Judicial Count could protect the public interest. Do you want the public interest to not be protected? The terms of the Settlement Agreement have not been upheld and it is up to the Collier County Commissioners to uphold them. How can they do that if they are not informed by their staff? This situation smells of deception and collusion. . . The Commissioners were circumvented in 2008 when they were not provided with clear information about the controversy involving the interpretation of the footnote and they are still being circumvented and deprived of information regarding the Cocohatchee Bay PUD and violations to the Settlement Agreement. We have waited patiently for days to hear from you or the County Manager regarding our issues. We have no choice but to go to the press. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this MINIM The fact that he continued to take actions regarding this matter by having breakfast with Commissioner McDaniel the Friday BEFORE we were scheduled to meet with that Commissioner the following Monday was both revealing and disappointing. . . Seems he told Commissioner McDaniels that there had been a precedent set for County staff's interpretation of that footnote accompanying the building standards chart in the PUD and so the Kalea Bay project was a done deal. That was beyond disappointing and makes me wonder why both the County Manager and the chair of the Planning Commission would try so hard to put up road blocks preventing me from meeting with Commissioner McDaniel . . On March 30, 2017, we asked for public records which would document the precedent disclosed to Commissioner McDaniel as well as any other instances in Collier County in which the footnote accompanying the building standards chart has been interpreted to mean that building separation could be infinitely administratively reduced by County"staff" as long as buildings had common architectural theme and were skewed. You commented that you were not aware of any litigation about this, but someone on County "staff' is fully aware that is not the case. The fact that the developer was able to get County "staff'to amend the approved SDP for Building 1 in order to move that Building 1/3 closer to Aqua was both disappointing AND a violation of the Settlement Agreement. We wanted to point that violation out to Commissioners on Tuesday, but you wouldn't allow it. The decision to move that building 60' closer to Aqua was significant and, according to paragraph 21 of the Settlement Agreement, should have been made only by the BCC. The fact that the developer was able to get County "staff'to amend the approved SDP for Building 1 to allow the width of that building to be increased by 50' is disappointing AND a violation of the terms of the 2008 Settlement Agreement,paragraph 21. That decision was significant and it should have been done "with the same formalities" and only done by the BCC. It is disappointing that the other 4 buildings will be 50' wider than on the approved SDP— another violation of the Settlement Agreement. It is unreasonable and disappointing that County "staff'has autonomous authority and, apparently,unlimited discretion to interpret a footnote accompanying the standards chart to mean that the developer does not have to abide by the formula for determining minimum building separation as long as the buildings have common architectural theme and are skewed. You,yourself, referred to that interpretation as"absurd"at the January 11, 2008 CCPC meeting. . . It is disappointing that the above slight of hand allowed deficient Kalea Bay Building separations to slip undetected through the PUD approval process. When an architect testifies during a Planning Commission meeting that he had to get out a scale to determine that the building separations in the drawings did not meet the minimum °/hare �# i y My name is Diane Rupnow �nd I live in the Glen Eden Community. ' ........ •. . . In 2000 the Cocohatchee Bay PUD was approved. That PUD contained a development standards chart and footnote that our attorney attached to his February 7th letter to YOU and I gave to commissioners again last Tuesday. Carl Stenddahl just read the footnote a few minutes ago. What was NOT in the PUD was an explanation of how that footnote could and would be interpreted by County staff. It appears that the County is misinterpreting the footnote to allow this developer to get away with drastically reducing separation between buildings. At the February 25, 2008 meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, Commissioner Caron said, "It absolutely defies credulity on the part of both staff and the petitioner that that asterisk in the development standards table means that 251 -foot buildings can essentially be built with zero lot lines." My sentiments exactly! Question: Are ALL developers privy to this slight of hand to get their buildings closer together or is this interpretation of this footnote reserved for those with special privilege? IF this footnote has been used in Collier County at least once before so a precedent IS in place, then I think the question becomes, were good planning standards used then to arrive at that decision? This footnote caused big controversy at the January 11 , 2008 Planning Commission meeting where several commissioners argued that this was not GOOD PLANNING. Our County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow referred to its interpretation as absurd and said, "The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time." Regarding the inclusion of the chart and footnote on the PUD approved in 2000, I have this to say. . . If the Planning Commissioner with a degree in Planning and Architecture has to get out a scale to determine that the building separations in the drawings did not meet the minimum required distances, then Rich Yovanovich's argument that these dimensions were clearly shown to neighbors during the PUD review process does not ring true. I contend that building separations of 153' 126'; 127'; and 341 ' were sneakily included and approved in the SDPs in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement On the County Commissioners' website, it lists your "Guiding Principles" or values. The first two are similar—"Honesty and Integrity". Since those traits are important to you I submit the only depiction of the completed Kalea Bay project to be found on their website. It shows potential condo buyers and neighbors of Kalea Bay 5 tall skinny towers about as far apart as they are tall. This depiction is a lie. In reality those towers will be TALLER, WIIDER, and MUCH CLOSER TOGETHER. We incorporated the accurate dimensions of the proposed Kalea Bay project and came up with this more realistic depiction showing towers 310' wide and 200' tall with currently proposed distances of 109'; 165'; 100' and 100' between the 5 buildings. So, this is a more truthful depiction of what the completed Kalea Bay project would look like. You can see the impact this massive wall of towers has on the skyline, shading the road and surrounding neighborhoods, blocking access to light and views. While researching this issue, I have been given an answer that was not truthful and had roadblocks set up by County staff. If there is nothing to hide, then truth and transparency should be granted to citizens like me seeking answers to valid questions. These decisions by administrative planning staff without BCC approval VIOLATED the public trust, violated the Settlement Agreement and should be investigated and discussed in a public forum. The final "Guiding Principle" or Value listed on your website is "SELF CORRECTING". I take that to mean that you want to make the best decisions possible for your constituents, the citizens of Collier County, so IF it is perceived that a mistake has been made, you are willing to investigate and reevaluate a decision and make "right a wrong." We hope you do. Thank you! Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Additional Facts For Commissioners Mark Strain, chair of the Planning Commission met with us and said he would research our concerns and find answers to our questions. Then 2 days later he informed us that he could have no further involvement in this matter because it might become a conflict of interest for him down the road and yet he continued to take actions regarding this matter by having breakfast with Commissioner McDaniel the Friday BEFORE we were scheduled to meet with that Commissioner. Seems he told Commissioner McDaniel that there had been a precedent set for County staff's interpretation of that footnote accompanying the building standards chart in the PUD and so the Kalea Bay project was a done deal. On March 30, 2017, we asked for public records that would document the precedent disclosed to Commissioner McDaniel as well as any other instances in Collier County in which the footnote accompanying the building standards chart had been interpreted to mean that building separation could be infinitely administratively reduced by County "staff" if skewed buildings had common architectural theme. We have received no public records yet. Does County "staff" have autonomous authority and unlimited discretion to interpret a footnote accompanying the standards chart to mean that this developer does not have to abide by the formula for determining minimum building separation as long as the buildings have common architectural theme and are skewed? Just so you know, plans the developer submitted to the SFWMD do not match the plans which the County sent us when awe sked for the most current Golf Course plans. Shouldn't plans submitted to the County and SFWMD match exactly in reference to land usage? Paragraph 15 of the Settlement Agreement states that "Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorney's fees or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord. No. 200-88 . . . . Does Paragraph 15 mean that the developer can't sue the County? Why should we have to spend over $2,000 to file an Administrative Appeal to get the Commissioners to review something they should be reviewing since they are bound to uphold the terms of the Settlement Agreement? Why should we spend $925 in notification fees to notify ourselves? Why should we have to file an Administrative Appeal and put ourselves in judicial jeopardy when our purpose is to provide County Commissioners with information they should have received from their own staff? If the County can't be sued by this developer, perhaps the County should make decisions that reign in this developer's greed, protect our Naples "sense of place" and uphold the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Paragraph 25 states, "In this respect, the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release. That Case No. shows that it is still pending. 9 years later. According to the Bert Harris Statute 70, both the County and the developer should have done that so that the 20th Judicial Count could protect the public interest. We'd like to see the public interest protected. The terms of the Settlement Agreement have not been upheld and it is up to the Collier County Commissioners to uphold them. How can you do that if you are not informed by County staff? The Commissioners were circumvented in 2008 when they were not provided with clear information about the controversy involving the interpretation of the footnote. They are still being circumvented and deprived of information regarding the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. This is not the first time that these developers have changed plans in their favor. We, the citizens, will suffer the consequences and experience the ruination of our beautiful view—forever. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 m l ° 2 a I \i) n. o \r")_.) t' t �' 10 . . .,... 8, '.: : ......... ''''-''' , i ctio c._.), I) . , .GtN a co �a o .n 0 v # ; N 1 Ei if-'-- ...--.1;••• U ->) I a C M f (\(-) , • v o m v o O' a O N a N ca -----_, c .,_::7:?.!';,!,g„,4,1;:,:, 11 ;-.'..---, :4:. C----) '• • t - c; ,., q cF. .1:: : Ai., T :r. al _ salt 0 L C LI ;' a) - U n (C "d u FN C d a -- - � ca m C^), - � U 9 W N m L CD _� 3 _ +++ Q 3 m E c� E U a n 0 q U A ,—� CN U CO _CU I T- b yyrrIf--�S X 4 ev L o r.r. l f " 9 rs4: Q.) -..A. 'e.,L.-: . . r 1 ii z d 2 J C—__.) . V m n v . \I) n w a P n M co U coV L O U R . . ., , ,, 1ii .. 03 s �� M ii ., .. 7.-.3. (L 3 /> m O O L ' a:11 N T m i ('') . IS 1 ' . m o N 0 ti Vi c) Vl . -, Q. 7 m fa I I m Z) --- N 7 M O N N U C m m U C � N .. 3� N yl b N Z. LI 3 r hx d m. a , .f s to ►-awe t^ pt'. . ,, -` \a) ''" ,* -' ". 4 wF- ,k, / , v, . ,.. , .,. „ 3 y: o C. a ----t , $,,,,z -,,, ; .., -----(7 i # w t ,*.,.'',.,.,....„ 1 „..' r- D 4,,, „ , . , . .,,, ,„ 7. I, , 1. - al .' i i ' ---- QJd i F wa cV ,,4 t , ' . ., �—r t ' , 4 tt. ci, i #,a G. 4. ®_____________).k) . , -i � ., fiN. r: O w :ar .-i Z ,` U ter^ 0 yam �a p� (^\ V ! b' ..Z-1111111 . s lit '1' . ' '''', ''''': ' '' 1 417(k ,,.7 . :.. , ,,,, Y � YT � �* ' ,. 'e, '*+ wit Q` E' T k FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2017 1:35 PM To: 'Renee Gaddis' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay PUD Ms. Gaddis, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 6, 2017 email and the attached letter expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. Vete William L. McDaniel, Jr. Commissioner,District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 - Web Page WEB PAGE: – From: Renee Gaddis [mailto:renee@reneegaddis.com] Sent:Thursday,July 6, 2017 1:15 PM To: McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; BurtSaunders@colliergov.n; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay PUD Renee Gaddis t.239.431-3352 i m. 239.348.5794 a. 9915 Tam ami Trail Ni, Suite 1 1 Naples. FL 34108 reen�nee@reneegaddis.com www.reneegaddis.com L1x EICEI 1 BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net McDaniel, Taylor, Saunder, Fiala, Solis Dear Collier County Commissioners: As a long-time Naples business owner, I am concerned that the opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay, should it be successful, may adversely affect the Southwest Florida economy and the Collier County tax base. Projects such as this generate significant tax revenue for our county and at the same time require little in government services. That's a win-win for government. It will also provide hundreds of jobs to an industry that is coming off years of stagnation. Commissioners, I urge you to support the Kalea Bay development project and allow our free market to work as it is intended and over the objections of the not- in-my-backyard opposition. Sincerely, Renee Gaddis Renee Gaddis Interiors 9915 Tamiami Trail N #1 Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 431-8352 FilsonSue To: djreedcaron@icloud.com Subject: Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and PUD Ms. Reed-Caron, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 2, 2017 letter expressing your concerns regarding the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners on July 11, 2017. I would suggest that you plan to be present to make your comments and concerns part of the public record. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. Fea William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Web Page WEB PAGE: 1 RECEIVED JUL 0 3 2017 OFFICES OF COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS To: C' ' 5/0-)-/C/P__. 7LL �/( e A4/1)/ --,5 From: Donna Reed Caron IECONEINE 1 District District 2 3 Date: July 2, 2017 JUL h D"31 r"ct Li!) district 4 Re: Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Pi�pp District 5 In a thinly veiled attempt to justify actions antithetical to good planning, staff issued a memorandum dated April 28, 2017 trying to explain the application of development standards for the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. The staff approval letter spends a great deal of time trying to clarify their actions and quoting the "clear language" of Florida Statutes. Critical to the discussion currently being brought forward by citizens is that staff is not following the Settlement Agreement and all of it's component parts in the reviewing process. The following is attempt to detail submitted changes in both clear language and unambiguous facts. Building One is 50 feet wider than shown on the original SDPs. The apparent intent is to make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of another whole building to the plan and further exacerbating the building separation issue. Clear and unambiguous. The developer has added twelve guest suites as accessory units. However, the PUD lists guest suites and cabanas as permitted uses and they are to be counted as part of the total number of residential units: 590. Four 20 story buildings each with 120 units equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Plus twelve guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So as of this date, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of units allowed. Clear and unambiguous. Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top structures such as the pool, community meeting room, and fitness center. According to the PUD, building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the upper most finished ceiling elevation of the roof structure. Also County Land Development Code staff and Zoning & Land Development staff issued an official clarification on the issue of roof-top accessory structures: SC 2004-05, "... the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased height, and refers to unenclosed, unroofed, and un-air conditioned space for recreational use." Clear and unambiguous. A housing unit (a habitable structure) has been added to the garage level, conflicting further with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. Clear and unambiguous. The plans that exist at the County are inconsistent with those submitted to South Florida Water Management - - - preventing any factual analysis to be conducted. For example the SFWMD plans show the addition of two four-plex units, further exceeding the allowed unit count. Nothing clear or unambiguous about this. Building separations are less than code minimums of 1/2 the sum of the building heights, and less than the already reduced and adjusted separations (as per PUD footnote #3) shown on the SDPs attached to the PUD and Settlement Agreement. To quote from the CCPC review that was accepted and approved by Board action, "However, as a result of language in the PUD, the CCPC recommends reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. As an alternative to the reduction in separation, greater distances could be provided by moving alternating towers closer to Vanderbilt Drive." Those separations are as follows: building 1 to 2, 153 feet; building 2 to 3, 126 feet; building 3 to 4, 127 feet; building 4 to 5, 341 feet. The Settlement Agreement, PUD, Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission, and three SDPs reviewed and approved by staff were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 22, 2008. This action was taken in total as part of the Summary Agenda. Again, The Board approved all documents as presented without objection from the County Attorney, County Manager, county staff, the petitioner, the petitioners agent or citizens. Clear and unambiguous. Staff cites several examples of supposed historical application of the administrative reduction of building separations. However, only one of the examples represents a high rise tower project and it is a side yard set back not a building separation situation. In this instance, staffs action was understandable since the Waterpark Place building is not next to another high rise but rather a four lane tree lined parking area leading to a tram to Pelican Bay beach. There are no past projects analogous to the Cocohatchee/Kalea Bay project. Clear and unambiguous. Besides the clear and unambiguous language of Florida statutes being an important tenet, ignoring any portion of an ordinance or law or reducing the language to an absurdity is equally important. Staffs interpretation that there is no limit to reducing building separations because of clauses such as `footnote #3', is not a credible interpretation. Additionally, staff cannot ignore the fact that the CCPC recommendation was included with the PUD, Settlement Agreement and Bald Eagle Management Plan on the Summary Agenda and was approved by The Board on April 22, 2008. The citizens of Collier County harbor serious concerns that must be addressed in a timely fashion. Upholding the Settlement in it's entirety is not only reasonable and proper, but critical to the community's continued trust in the rule of law, our ordinances, the sanctity of contracts and settlements, and of course to the integrity of and respect for our system of county governance and the people elected and appointed to assure equal treatment for all. Thank you. Donna Reed Caron 790 Wiggins Bay Drive -� Naples, FL. 34110 G ul'I nit l 239-514-2780 239-280-6857 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 11:59 AM To: 'Daniel Fusco' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay opposition Mr. Fusco, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 6, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. Eu?C William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Web WEB PAGE: � = Original Message From: Daniel Fusco [mailto:twcfusco@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,July 6, 2017 11:50 AM To: McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay opposition Hello, Just a quick note in regards to the petition against phase 2 of Kalea Bay. I am the owner/operator of Woodworkers Cabinet of Naples, Inc and we work closely with CR Smith and his team to manufacture custom cabinetry and millwork for his clients. We have grown our company to over 30 employees and we primarily service CR Smith and the Kalea Bay project. We have recently purchased a second location down the street from our current shop on Taylor Rd. to enable us to keep up with the needs of the Kalea project and we are extremely excited for the remaining phases of this development. Please consider the impact on the families who are counting on this project for years to come and will need this to help pay for their kids college. (I have 5 of them!) Thank you and we appreciate our beautiful town and all the opportunities it offers to the trades people! Sincerely, Daniel Fusco 1 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 1:39 PM To: 'Brian Dollard' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Project Mr. Dollard, This will acknowledge receipt of your July 3, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 w . WEB PAGE: From: Brian Dollard [mailto:briandollardree@gmail.com] Sent: Monday,July 3, 2017 1:13 PM To: McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Project To the Collier County Commissioners, It has been brought to my attention there is opposition to the development of the Kalea Bay Project by a few surrounding neighbors. Let me start by saying I am a 41 year Resident of Naples, I have been in the construction business for 38 years. I have seen all the changes from Ft. Myers to Marco Island.The construction industry here is 2nd to none for quality of job and the tradesman that build them. We are a vital part of our communities. From purchasing our own properties and creating commerce with other businesses and industries. Also by creating a better tax base for our State and local Government. I currently employ roughly 50 tradesman for our company. Local men and women who have families to provide and support.The Kalea bay Project is vital to my family and my employees families to live a quality life here in Southwest Florida. In this situation with the opposition opinion, it's a shame that a few who have their dwelling in the this location are opposed to those who would like a dwelling in the same location. (this makes no sense).The Kalea Bay project is the most beautiful thought out resort style community that I have been involved with and the privilege to work on. The construction Industry has been in some tough times as of late,just the past year or so we have been coming out of a serious slow down due to the financial crisis. All the people involved are starting to live a better life and contribute to the community in a more vigor way. If this project was delayed or stopped because of the few who only have their own interest in mind and not the greater good of the community it would be another hardship on the construction industry and the people involved. My company and its employees would certainly feel hardship in their lives. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Best regards to all of you. Brian Brian Dollard briandollardree@gmail.com RCE Contractors, Inc 3884 Progress Ave Naples, FL 34104 239-643-5758-Office 239-825-1532- Cell 239-643-6772-Fax CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is only for the person(s) named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail. 2 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 1:52 PM To: 'Aris Dougherty' Subject: RE: KALEA BAY 2 Mr. Dougherty, This will acknowledge receipt of your June 30, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel, Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 WEB PAGE: From:Aris Dougherty [mailto:adougherty1530@gmail.com] Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 1:19 PM To: Fiala Donna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: KALEA BAY 2 Hello, My name is Aris Dougherty, I reside in Collier County and work in the construction industry. My job will be directly affected in a very negative way if Kalea Bay 2 is halted. I don't understand why anyone wants to hold back Naples' growth and economy. Please consider the hundreds of people that will be affected if this project is halted. Thank you very much for your consideration, Aris Dougherty Naples, FL 1 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:43 PM To: 'Chris.Brasher@Ferguson.com' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Bld #2 Mr. Brasher, This will acknowledge receipt of your June 29, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. Eat William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 11111 We—b.—Page WEB PAGE: F AMENSubscribe to our mailing list: From:Chris.Brasher@Ferguson.com [mailto:Chris.Brasher@Ferguson.com] Sent:Thursday,June 29, 2017 1:39 PM To: McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna<DonnaFiala@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: Kalea Bay Bld#2 To the Collier County Commissioners, I understand that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned citizen who is heavily involved in the construction industry as I work for Ferguson Enterprise which employees 700+associates (quality jobs+ benefits) in Florida in our plumbing division alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be directly affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. Ferguson is very involved in both our communities and by providing quality opportunities, as well as teaching, coaching,training, and furthering developing people's skills. Our industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Chris Brasher 1 • Ferguson a Wolseley Compan Director of Branch Management- Florida District 10355 S Orange Ave. Orlando,Fl 32824 0: (407)856-5161 M:239-823-0935 Ferguson Online -Always Open! http://www.fergusononline.com 2 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday,June 29, 2017 12:38 PM To: 'Ron Bowling' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Mr. Bowling, This will acknowledge receipt of your June 29, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. b�P William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 VYeb age WEB PAGE: AMMO Subscribe to our mailing list: From: Ron Bowling [mailto:ron@acresplumbing.com] Sent:Thursday,June 29, 2017 12:23 PM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Dear Collier County Commissioners, I wanted to send my personal concerns in reference to possible delays in the construction of the next building at the Kalea Bay project. I work for a plumbing company that is currently working on the Kalea Bay project. With the planned start of building#2 we are able to keep our staffing working anticipating the next building to start. If it does not,there will be layoffs due to lack of work. I personally have struggled as many others for the last 8 to 9 years trying to survive the hardships in the most drastic down turn in construction this area has seen. It was a long, slow recovery and we are just now becoming hopeful in our futures in the construction trade and regaining some ground. I am very sensitive in concern with growth and over-development and believe our local government has found a balance for everyone in my personal experience of living here for over 40 years. I was fond of the Wiggins Pass area in the 70's when there was little more than a Marina and some small developments.That is not the case these days and much of that area is built on and believe the very people complaining reside in the adjacent areas probably have not been here for very many years. Nor do they likely reside here year round or earn a living here. Kalea Bay has already been approved and site developed for the future construction of these buildings.The potential opportunities for our working residents and the revenue to 1 local business will be felt county wide and will effect hundreds upon hundreds of the collier working class and business owner residents. Please represent us in allowing this building to proceed as planned. Our livelihoods are counting on you. Sincerely, Ron Bowling Acres&Son Plumbing Inc. 5701 Houchin St Suite#1 Naples, Fl 34109 Office 239-597-5031 Fax 239-597-3740 ron@acresplumbing.com www.acresplumbing.com 2 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:50 AM To: 'Nancy Farnsworth' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Hearing Ms. Farnsworth, This will acknowledge receipt of your June 29, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel, Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Web Page WEB PAGE: _- Subscribe to our mailing list: OSUB$CRIBE From: Nancy Farnsworth [mailto:tennis.nut@mindspring.com] Sent:Thursday,June 29, 2017 11:37 AM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Hearing Dear County Commissioners, As a native Neapolitan, I have seen our county go through many many changes in my 53 years. Some have been very hard to take, yet overall I believe our County has been lead in a good direction with a balanced growth. My livelihood for over 30 years has been in the construction industry. The company I work for made it through the very difficult downturn in the housing/construction market, however only 21 of 192 employees kept their jobs and those who were still employed struggled with significant pay cuts and less working hours. Fortunately, the past couple years it has turned around. My employer is directly impacted by Kalea Bay. There were 25 employees who directly worked on building 1 and 5 others who did Kalea Bay work at the office including myself. If the Kalea Bay building 2 does not proceed, numerous employees, full time residents and your constituents will lose their jobs. Please stand firm against those who oppose this project that has already been approved. Thank you for your service and your consideration in this matter. Nancy Farnsworth 7818 Emerald Circle Naples, FL 2 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday,June 29, 2017 11:58 AM To: 'Rene Acres-Hatch' Subject: RE: Kalea Bay Ms. Acres-Hatch, This will acknowledge receipt of your June 29, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Wet~" age.. WEB PAGE: - ' Subscribe to our mailing list: — From: Rene Acres-Hatch [mailto:Rene@acresplumbing.com] Sent:Thursday,June 29, 2017 11:55 AM To: McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Bill McDaniel, I am writing to express my concerns for halting the construction of Kalea Bay 2. I have resided in Naples for over 48 years and have been employed in the construction industry for over 30 years. Tourism is our industry here in Naples and construction is a large part of what keeps Naples growing to accommodate the new comers in our area. Halting the progress of Kalea Bay would have impacts on several areas that should be of concern to ALL Naples residents, not just the few in Glen Eden who might have their view obstructed. Glen Eden should take into consideration that they were entitled to develop their community without opposition from others in the area. Please know the decision that you make concerning this project will set precedence for all future projects and will affect the employment of hundreds of construction workers. I am asking that you please honor your approval of the development of Kalea Bay. Sincerely, Rene' 1 Rene'Acres-Hatch R Acres Plumbing Co LLC 1911 Seward Ave, Suite 3 Naples, FL. 34109 PH: 239-598-0800 FX: 239-597-1590 Rene@acresplumbing.com �j-f •� ACRES . : . PLUME ' .' a• °f. 24 HOUR EMERGENCY SERVICE Website Like us on Facebook 2 FilsonSue From: McDanielBill To: Gregory.Bennett@Ferguson.com Subject: RE: Kalea Mr. Bennett, This will acknowledge receipt of your June 27, 2017 email expressing your support for the Kalea Project. Your opinion is important to me and I will carefully consider all comments and information when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If I can be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact my office. William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 Web Page WEB PAGE: Subscribe to our mailing list: From:Gregory.Bennett@Ferguson.com [mailto:Gregory.Bennett@Ferguson.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 27, 2017 11:23 AM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>;SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Collier county team, My name is Greg Bennett and I work at Ferguson Enterprises. I have been a part of the Kalea project for the past 5 years. I mainly work on multifamily and have got to spend time in high rises both on our side and the other coast. There is nothing that represents Naples better than Kalea Bay. The project is unlike anything else in the state. It's a high level project, that has the quality and look that all of our northern friends are seeking. Many of the clients are also local Naples people looking for a second home. I know many of the buyers and can't explain their excitement to move in. These are people coming for weeks at a time. From a personal level,the stoppage of work would have a major effect on the economy and my family. My company alone has forecasted this work and planned accordingly. Many people have been hired and trained to service this job as we should. We have based things on feedback from sales. I am Estero residence who has a huge desire to move to Naples. I work in Naples, go to church at North Naples and mainly dine down south. My wife asks me every day when we can move. Projects like Kalea keep our dreams alive of being able to make the move down. We are younger(35 1 years old)with 3 kids. Naples schools for high school is what we want. I can't explain how many estero/fort myers friends of mine have the same dream to get down. Projects like Kalea provide the income to achieve this. Yes there are over 300 people on the project but there are a ton more behind the scenes. From the distributers to the designers,we would all be hurt from any stoppage. We are the people who are here year round spending money while others are gone. We are the future leaders of our community. Nothing represents Naples better than Kalea bay. Thanks for your time, Gregory Bennett Builder Sales Ferguson,a Wolseley Company 38 Goodlette-Frank Rd, Naples Fl 34102 USA 0:239-963-0080 C:239-872-2713 gregory.bennett@ferguson.com 2 FilsonSue From: FilsonSue on behalf of McDanielBill Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 9:04 AM To: Ngh0031 Subject: RE: KALEA BAY SDPA Mr.and Mrs.Taylor,,this will acknowledge receipt of your email dated April 13,2017 and your comments regarding the Kalea Bay Settlement Agreement. While I appreciate receiving your comments, I am taking the liberty of forwarding the County Attorney's response to this subject as follows: The Public Comment portion of the agenda is entitled"Public Comments on General Topics Not on the Current or Future Agenda." The purpose of this portion of the agenda is to allow the public to comment on anything they wish except matters that are on, or will be on, the Board's agenda. I fully expect this matter will be on a future Board agenda. At this point in time the Site Development Plan is still under review by staff. No decision has been made. If and when the Site Development Plan is approved by staff the community will be notified, at which point if there is any objection the matter can be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. Having speakers comment on this process before approval of the Site Development Plan is finalized is contrary to the procedure, is unfair to the Developer, and could ultimately lead to a very poor result in Court for both the County and the community. You are of course free to speak to any of the Commissioners in private about your concern. As an aside I was intimately involved in all aspects of the Settlement Agreement, and I can assure you that if and when the Site Development Plan is finalized, it will be fully consistent with that Agreement. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239) 252-2614 If I can be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me. Ede William L. McDaniel,Jr. Commissioner, District 5 3299 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8605 WEB PAGE: www.colliergov.net/CommissionerMcDaniel Subscribe to our mailing list: I 1 From: Ngh0031 [mailto:ngh0031@aol.com] Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:59 AM To: McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: KALEA BAY SDPA I reside in Glen Eden on the Lakes. The Kalea Bay project is under construction on Vanderbilt Drive in North Naples, with the first tower almost complete and the remaining four towers to be built. A Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) is currently under review by Collier Planning, showing buildings with a separation between buildings that would be one-half the required minimum distance (i.e., a separation of 100 feet measured between towers, and 72 feet measured between parking structures). It is also our understanding that the first tower is at least 50 feet wider than the approved SDP. If the remaining towers were to be built as proposed in the SDPA, the results would be a huge concrete barrier to light and air and view. On April 11th, a group of concerned citizens living in the Vanderbilt Drive area attended a Board of County Commissioners meeting to express concerns over these proposed revisions to the approved plans. Sixteen residents signed up to speak during the Public Comment portion of the meeting. After hearing the first speaker, the County Attorney advised the Board that no further public comments on this issue should be allowed. The rationale given was that procedure required that the Site Development Plan Amendment be approved by staff, after which an administrative appeal could be filed. In our opinion, a review and decision on the Site Development Plan Amendment as submitted should not be left solely to staff, but should be considered in a public hearing before the full Board of County Commissioners to allow input and discussion from all parties. These changes are significant, impactful and would be detrimental to all aspects of this area of Vanderbilt drive. We respectfully ask that a public hearing on this issue be held. Henry & Barbara Taylor 14599 Glen Eden Drive Naples, Fl. 34110 2 My name is Judi Palay. I am a resident in Glen Eden, North Naples, and have been a homeowner there since 2002. More than a year ago, I came before you asking you to please uphold the Settlement Agreement regarding the Cocohatchee Bay PUD — Kalea Bay and the property on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive-- even though it is a less than perfect document. You agreed that it should not be reopened. That Agreement and the Site Development Plans allow 5 towers to go up on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. Incidentally, the height of those, while listed at 200 feet each, is really 220 feet when the height of the two levels of garages are added. Aqua, next door is 11 stories. Arbor Trace, on the other side is 17 stories. The Dunes is 203'. Five of these massive towers? Does that maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods on Vanderbilt Drive? I think not! We will have a wall of cement instead of beautiful sunsets. This is not the first time that this developer has sought a different set of rules for his projects. Unfortunately, most times the community did not learn of these until it was too late. Minutes from some of the planning staff meetings back up our assertions. It was even suggested to him to skew the buildings to enable them to change the distances between. Other communities did not have the protection of the Settlement Agreement and PUD. Planning staff has severely altered those previously approved Plans, changing the building widths- 50 feet wider for each building and the distance between the parking structures down to less than 75 feet. And... along the way, the placement of the buildings, lake, and some of the amenities have changed as well. Apparently, you, our Commissioners, were unaware of these changes. You were circumvented. When we brought each of you a copy of a letter from our attorney sent to County Attorney Jeff Klatskow, each of you said you had not seen it. That letter was to let you know of some of the changes that were being requested for Buildings 2-5. Building 1 is already up. That one got moved 60' closer to Aqua. The other changes are not what was approved on the SDPs and are not minor cosmetic changes. In addition, on March 30, under the FL Freedom of Information Act, we requested information from Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner: Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Mike Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean to learn where else exceptions had been made to building spacing by doing questionable skewing to get spacing reductions. We citizens wanted to present a fair and accurate report to you. A week later—no response except from Attorney Klatskow who knew of no relevant legal suits. We are urging you, on your next agenda, to have discussion on Amendment SDPA PL 2016000242 and allow the many issues it raises to come into the daylight. Please do not allow approval before this open discussion can take place. In addition, we ask you to please review the LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 which states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" which is then shared. This is from the 12/18/2014 CCPC Agenda. While part of this section talks about rezoning, shouldn't the same criteria be applied before making any substantial changes? The REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08. F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land the report and recommendations to the Planning Commission, to the Board of County Commissioners... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable". I would like to emphasize number 6- "Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; number 9 – Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to the adjacent areas; number 10- Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; number 12- Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare and finally, number 18- Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. These are logical criteria that make sense to consider under any circumstance. I would offer to you a very rough look at proportional building spacing at 200 feet—that is the distance between Aqua and Kalea Bay Building one. Then, please note what it would look like—the entire black paper being the width of a building in Kalea Bay (and please note the width with 50 feet added— the red -- which adds 20% on -- vs the height) when the distance is 100 feet. Again, please note that the parking structures would be less than 75 feet apart. And so, once again, we ask you to please protect your constituents from over- reach which continues to threaten our neighborhoods. Thank you RALF BROOKES, ATTORNEY Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law February 7, 2017 Collier County do Collier County Attorney In Re: Cocohatchee Bav/Kalea Bay Development Issues Dear Collier County I represent a number of adjacent property owners and residents who have the following objections and concerns regarding the above referenced development: 1. The setback between the first building and proposed second building at Kalea Bay does not meet the minimum building setback of 1/2 the buildings sum height(i.e.,the total building heights when added together)which is at least 200' See,Table 3.5 in 4368 OR.Book p .2375,and 4368 OR.Book pp.2415-2416,and instead would provide less than 100 ft. in building separation. a. An administrative deviation should not be used to drastically and substantially reduce the setback between buildings by more than 100' and more than '/2 the required setback. b. It is unreasonable to grant an administrative deviation of more than 100 feet and more than '/2 the required setback without another public hearing to provide an opportunity for adjoining and nearby property owners to be heard regarding this substantial deviation. c. The similar architectural design of the 2 buildings does not alleviate the reduction the views by over 100'through the buildings that would impact the view of adjoining and neighboring residents(sometime colloquially referred to as the"condo canyons"effect). d. The calculation of building height sum for the setback is even greater than 400' because there is a habitable dwelling unit located on 2nd Floor Garage(See,Building Permit Plans depicting MANAGER's QUARTERS on the 2"a Floor Garage). This garage floor containing the managers dwelling unit should have been included in the building height calculation for the purposes of calculating building height sum for building setbacks, -or the manager's quarters should be removed from the building plans. 2. We are also concerned that the developer not miss, and that the County monitor and be aware of, the rapidly approaching,upcoming requirements contained in the Settlement Agreement: a. Of particular concern is the approaching deadline required by paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement for recording Restrictive Covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of the golf course parcel before or at the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the 1st bldg. Kalea Bay Tower 1,which is approaching Certificate of Occupancy in mid-2017 b. Similarly,Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement requires a 10-ft sidewalk be completed before,at or upon C.O. in 2017. We are referring these objections to the County for review and any necessary actions. Best regards, /s/Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway 4107 Cape Coral,Fl 33904 Phone(239)910-5464;fax(866)341-6086 RalfBrookes@gmail.com Attachments Each building is 200+' Sum of Building Height=400+' Building Setback is 200+' t See OR Book 4368 Page 2375 and 2415(attached) /, � rn o P lbc Ow L 3 iv j o N L c VI It tu al QL. 45. , u u ct H { N C C CJ U rill C1 L O' f0 c0. acu .A0 CU ti = C N M 'tS v1 CO to U a °1 v • ^` u iv ami c a) 4, 12 .5 cc ; .5 i a 46' t5 c CC).....tt T t u - ca VI L O 1 � __o`` E V • v o a 4 o c a0 41 C ( T\ 1 L N c v `° L a L 3 ViN, 1 T-' -- 7. r _ 00 l'il — - __ - 1 -- --- i%, O F : ' WC 11 7-M-twnsioll--1--lij XV zi °,, D. 0 © 9 - - I l` /� 1`� 0 I 41; i it I. ,, i i!`moi I E:i; -%;% s i 1- ___:r .1 . : j a , ________ //' c - °":411 5 r i , ,, h: ; ;.... „v...., 1 _ , ..,74 ___. , , _•. , / ,, __ _, . . , _ 1 . . :.....7:,1 ,, , ?„, 0 ...ff./. , . ...... .. Cti ®, EY I . MEZEI _ ►k I C � 0i ® Vw a DAgotil °g � KALEA BAY ,, . litI o '' >_ CONDOMINIUMS Ili111111111i si ��Ill' EI S OR: 4368 PG: 2375 COCOHATCH88 MY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TABLE E I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS "RI" "R2" • HIGH-RISS MULTI-FAMILY Mild-Thr DwatibP hilislorm Lot Area N/A 1 Acre Mldouo Lot Width N/A WA Frost Yard-Interlard Road •t 0.5 BH not las 0.3 BH Dot less than 25 feet thee 25 lett Fruit Yard•Accessary Iaebd1/Parking Structure OS BH not less I 0.5 BH not leu than 25{eel ! thea 25 tea Freat Yard-'Vanderbilt Drive BH N/A • Frost Yard-Accessary Bldg. 50 WA Melo Yard 03 BH 15 Rear Yard Prhaelpal T 0.5 BH iS Rear YardAeosaceY �ILR - IS to Maim Bldg 20 , • l� 33 -- height • •2 Dist oe -� 03 S; •3 as BH not less that 15 fact Pinar Area MIL r • 1200 SF I. i-" @Tlt Maass Heigh*Raft be de venicai Aimee op..mt N collies ekvationtithe hahltebitlNtYastlsoraiwaYasrrs SRg(Sao of May lidslait of two at>ioatr hri laws . • .. ofdessu a as uabach taerLarau Ara distances ate in bat slot otharoiseaatstl ' Terri v• \IlC'1� •i Fort yards shall be taeasrad as follows: A. If the pwo t is served by a public risMd-way.ssloeh is msmsrsd from the adJnvat eight-afiv y tits B. 1f the pascal is sasved by a private nod.aethatt is ataarid from the but daub(If orbedl a edit at pttvaaaat(R ust curbed). 92 Bsridiag bsisht for the walk pwtparry Use addaceas to Arbor True its lbs`R 1'eros shall be IS Noris for a arutiatttu Mists of 150 fes. •3 WMte b-ides Iva a wawa aubitsearal seise see msb4*awed ar other hors ciao amoeba sod walk toe trot panalol raw saotber.the whu les an be fly seduced. 't 3.3 ..../ _- 11:_436.8--PG. 2415 -- r 2. Recreational uses such as, but not limited to, clubhouse, fitness center, , health spa,tennis courts,swimming Pods or similar remotions'uses. 3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planting Services Department Dieter determines to be compatible in the 2:=1l" MRT-District*. 3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I A. Table I II sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" , Residential Districts. B. Standards for parting, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such wodaeds are not specified herein or within the CCocobatchee Bay PUD,are to be in accordance with Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated,required yards, heights,and floor area standards to principal structures. Y -_` C. Off-street . ; ...-. ',�Z •C . \ s shall be accessed by parking i aisles or dri a. are separate . . .. _ . .. which serve more than one development./ space area of not ten feet (10') in width as measured , -1 nt ..,, separate any Patting aisle i or A any ' ... . • . 0." i 'I►T . . . . • 1 ' •,,. ., , : Tam war ; i , . . �j. .. .. , kiinEE r • mow= muimiougnara us Mbar M .F..nr Dwslahip• 21301111111E i Il demes ant Ansa _ WA i-Aw. 1A lairiar e s waw WA WA M newt Testi-L.■d Dead n 03 BH sot Mss as-aWseeles. 114,Majams, _ deo 25 ket r.ai-lest Dor211 4.1_,... Awe Tad-Aees—r!bldg 0.5 BR sat Mss 04.1011esilese Di Bei set less babiia larlltoa_Ue♦tarrr dna 25 lea , dursaidesi da a2l.faa Wrest Turd-Versderldi Drive BR WA NA !Yat Tani-Ae ease s dd& 50 _ WA BiitTard 03 BA ii 15_ Lar Tad Pried's. 03 BH ii 11 • =oar Yard Acorrsrri 15 40 - 1Q 3.2 F 2128106 revision e J . _ . _ OR: 4368 PG: 2416 thassima Bldg Haut 'i20 etorb foratomes 2a 31 Might d 200 feet .2 Mimes M1w.hi.r4ft 8lesebres 03 SEH Dii its iljjamika, ilawii;iel Amnia Thor Ate.1111a. (81) 1100 SP 1000 .12110/EM •" la Oblibios dr h app�rN[fluid.'"Building c i d Msbee die vaniad disuse�n.. 4 free Ib Ent b idie0 leer dew** 1 .d loathe& MOW CC.li.ed beige of two lama Mildew r (ar t4 mimes of dusrd.i.E ee inek 1 ! r f Al dimness us is int a.bes otYswiae noted. •1 Frost yeas*di ba soasaesd u mows: A. VIM peed is rrtwd by a psititie risbt-o[-way.nabs&is mused Ms die sdi.oeot i aFir.f Boe- ck. Nibs psasi is newt by a privies swot nabs&is massa teas ibe tuck of nub(If embed)er odes of parmaa;Of sot=bed). 02 Befidiq blight for tin aoslf property lima agj-'at is Arbor Thee is die-Bi."test ion be jj 41 dories tor a—dram beige of 121;10 fret. _ a3 Mime -- es betilila a --a itl i `q anus foes nae asefras ar.aid wnes sat wad to oat steam,the adtaaeb ft6 ud.sed —\\ / / `14.„...„ \ Iop i : 1 1_ L TGIF. c'IRC. 3.3 ' 2/28/08 fevlslon lets: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 n! 024.00 CUU TO TU lOAID UCOODID in tie OFFICIAL UCOODS of COLLI!! COUTT, FL COMAS 97.00 IITRORIC! 4T! FLOOI 06/10/2000 at 10:460 KNIT I. !FOCI, CLUE UT 7246 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this°t{ ,day of , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle Viand L CI WHEREAS, the PUD j n is also som i sisSveferred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD; and ! / WHEREAS, Lod fil `� ti n o e toy �.�a Tentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, 4ia e '•„ ty' i iQnt concerning the proposed Jr amendment to the PUD's Ba`l gie Management Mk; taie being styled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier CounKei - =�'�i' WHEREAS, on or around May 1,2 ,JLodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Hams, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Harris Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.;and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4x6) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. 1 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. ` As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, '17 they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses • 7 described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this '1 r,✓ I y requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area orsoliprever discontinued or abandoned for any reason, then all of the GQ' ' • including wi 'titation the entire golf course development area, except f¢r tlyse4ot oAsatiowed\for th. two (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green op-n 471•. 't to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the armed ' s S • 'pce . �+�eiisions to these restrictive covenants will require a supe ity vote of the Bo f, Commissioners. 9. To fully satisfy i d�li j idewalks along adjacent off-site EIE C:t1Z public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway en (10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006)in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST,;- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E,1 ROCK,CLERK COLLIER C• Y,F ORIDA By � 1. karimi r By. _ 1-if i�� A - 'Ir SI tS 041IP -.uty lerk TOM ENNING,C • i• • 114nature on -. WI SES; 7- kied2---- Signed Name Ptoelth Print Name / / 1414 `.w‘" Si��!i Name �, e ?M • BOTT ASSOCIATES,LLC a / \,� .d„J ,I 2,c1nps ( a�� / ITS: L1-. . ,.2 c Printed Name \\\ --- Ap. .ved as to form and e• .. t; s . • ,, n > ,""(....... ..„) Je . •, A. K1 T. ow -0 Co Atto y y 'Gp �1�� i TIE CIRC 9 2/28/08 revision Cocohatchee Bay Facts/Time Line The Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved in 2000 and included 532.09 acres of land, 590 dwelling units, 4 towers 20 stories tall, 1 tower 15 stories tall, a golf course with 3 holes west of Vanderbilt and 15 holes east of Vanderbilt. Of the 590 dwelling units, 110 units were approved east of Vanderbilt and 480 units were approved in the towers. The 2000 PUD also included a Bald Eagle Management Plan in which Abbott agreed to a "no construction zone" within 750' of the bald eagles' nest (1500' during nesting season.) When the bald eagle was removed from the endangered species list, Abbott applied for and received approval from state and federal agencies and submitted a site development plan. Planning Commission advised that a PUD amendment to amend the Bald Eagle Management Plan would first be required. May 10, 2005 BCC heard Abbott's amendment and disapproved by a vote of 4-1 . Abbott began litigation in June of 2005. May 1 , 2006 Abbott served a Bert Harris Notice of Claim on the County for over $247 million. At its December 12, 2006 Commissioners authorized making a written settlement offer to Lodge Abbott. April 22, 2008 BCC approved Settlement Agreement. The document was dated June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts on June 10th The Settlement allowed 108 dwelling units to be moved from the eastern parcel to the towers and assured that "if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reasons, then all of the GC Parcel including without limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those portions allowed for 2 residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the amended PUD Preserve Parcel " To read entire settlement go to: http://media.wix.com/ugd/d6f3a1 _6aecd24ad6d948849c6b3cfec23e6cf4.pdf December 31 , 2013- Abbott resubmitted a proposal to build 280 dwelling units on Golf Course Parcel. This included multi-family housing and senior assisted living. March 19, 2014 -At NIM meeting at St. John's Church about 700 concerned citizens voiced opposition to Abbott's proposal. April 14 & 15, 2014- Meetings were hosted by_Commisioner Hiller so developer could meet with HOA leaders from surrounding subdivisions. May 2, 2014- Meeting at Hiller's Orange Blossom office at which new building proposal of 62 homes on % acres lots was shared with HOA leaders. August, 2014- Abbott submitted new proposal to Planning Commission for approval to build 62 luxury homes on1/2 acre lots. December 18, 2014 Planning Commission approved proposal to build 62 homes on 1 acre lots. Richard Grant, developer's attorney stated that building a golf course had been abandoned because golf was no longer popular or profitable. Mid January—March, 2015- Area residents vocalized opposition to opening the settlement agreement, amending it and rezoning the land from golf course to residential. March 24, 2015- At BCC meeting Commissioners Taylor and Fiala refused to support rezoning the land. Commissioners voted 5--0 to NOT reopen the Settlement Agreement. April 7, 2015- Richard Grant, the petitioner's attorney, sent an 8 page letter to County Manager asking BCC for reconsideration and threatening to sue the county if it wasn't granted. April 14, 2015- At BCC meeting Hiller made a motion to bring this matter up for reconsideration. None of the other Commissioners would second it. April 26, 2015- The threat to sue the county was recanted in a $4,000 full page ad in Naples Daily News purportedly as a good-will gesture to the community when in fact the developer had no basis for the suit. On June 1 7, 201 5, Lodge extended a 2004 golf course permit and clear cut two large sections of land. I called Matt McLean's office in September and November and asked that the site be inspected for any violations of the permit. Both times his office responded that all clearing was allowed by the permit. In 2016 the entire interior of the Golf Course Parcel was cleared. RALF BROOKES, ATTORNEY Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law February 7,2017 Collier County do Collier County Attorney In Re: Cocohatchee Bay/Kalea Bay Development Issues Dear Collier County I represent a number of adjacent property owners and residents who have the following objections and concerns regarding the above referenced development: 1. The setback between the first building and proposed second building at Kalea Bay does not meet the minimum building setback of 1/2 the buildings sum height(i.e.,the total building heights when added together)which is at least 200' See,Table 3.5 in 4368 O.R.Book p .2375,and 4368 O.R.Book pp.2415-2416,and instead would provide less than 100 ft. in building separation. a. An administrative deviation should not be used to drastically and substantially reduce the setback between buildings by more than 100' and more than '/2 the required setback. b. It is unreasonable to grant an administrative deviation of more than 100 feet and more than 1/2 the required setback without another public hearing to provide an opportunity for adjoining and nearby property owners to be heard regarding this substantial deviation. c. The similar architectural design of the 2 buildings does not alleviate the reduction the views by over 100'through the buildings that would impact the view of adjoining and neighboring residents(sometime colloquially referred to as the"condo canyons"effect). d. The calculation of building height sum for the setback is even greater than 400'because there is a habitable dwelling unit located on 2nd Floor Garage(See,Building Permit Plans depicting MANAGER's QUARTERS on the 2"d Floor Garage). This garage floor containing the managers dwelling unit should have been included in the building height calculation for the purposes of calculating building height sum for building setbacks, -or the manager's quarters should be removed from the building plans. 2. We are also concerned that the developer not miss, and that the County monitor and be aware of, the rapidly approaching,upcoming requirements contained in the Settlement Agreement: a. Of particular concern is the approaching deadline required by paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement for recording Restrictive Covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of the golf course parcel before or at the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the l'bldg. Kalea Bay Tower 1,which is approaching Certificate of Occupancy in mid-2017 b. Similarly,Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement requires a 10-ft sidewalk be completed before,at or upon C.O. in 2017. We are referring these objections to the County for review and any necessary actions. Best regards, /s/Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral,Fl 33904 Phone (239)910-5464; fax(866)341-6086 RalfBrookes@gmail.com Attachments Each building is 200+' Sum of Building Height=400+' Building Setback is 200+' rt See OR Book 4368 Page 2375 and 2415(attached) it L L 4. o u tO 4C ...., .,z 5 cz, 2 3 -) o QS- 0 E q � Naas 4). C ea CJ U i y L. C G1 vs on v c —itsul m N a °1 a, ill .7"r-74 a) 0111 'b da oc 5a`) COe. a, L 4J a m c �4 d aS u „ cis o V) E E go V a � it CDon 13"- EKs L 3 OR: 4368 PG: 2375 COCOHATCHEB BAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TABLE 1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS "RI" "R2" • HIGH-RISE MR.TI-FAIaLY Matti-Fondly Dwellings Mtatount Let Area N/A 1 Aare . Mies suet Lot Width WA N/A Front Yard-Internal Road •t , 03 BH not less 03 BH not las than 25 het thea 25 feet Wrestilar Yard-Accessory Bldg. 03 BH not less 03 BH not las Intiothan 23 feet than 25 feet Frost Yard-Vanderbilt Drive BH N/A Frost Yard-Aoesaary Bldg. S0 j N/A Shia Yard 03 BH } 13 Rear Yard Prisetpl - 0.5 BH 15 Rear Yard ar Aoory .1�R C(j S ——10 Maxims Bldg 20 • • 35 WightDistance - r-*:r .. 03 SB •3\\ 03 BH not lea '� �• \ than 3S feet Meer Ana * r,,„\:,.., � l to SI+ r,4 . r. ,_ r Jr- fa (SOWN NdO):theildleg thplia be the vertical distma hoe ` habitable finished floor tirades so the opponent /' wilkd elevation of the .� SRlt(Sara etBydiq >< of-ttwoadjacent treadie0 atdeetwii�la amtbiatearisimmea. AS dktrtns as in tees eels et envthe mod / t t C IRI/ 9 Hoot yards shall be seaweed as follows: A. If the Assad h served by a public right-of-way.snbaek is miesaed from the*Mom right-of-way lies B. if the pascal it served by a Private road.sabre*is asesered from the hot of comb(Wombed)mbed)err edge of proems*(h eat curbed). '2 8ridisB heielt for the hath property U..Mimeo w Arbor Tom is the"R 1"tea shall be 1 S Marius for a reasi Bute hire of 150 feet. *3 mother.the setbacksere COMMIS amt itectend Herne we nettled.stewed or offset front one another.sad walk we hot math so ants be y reduced. 1 1 3.3 -- - OR 4368 PG: 2415• • I 2. Recreational uses such as, but not limited to, clubhouse, fitness coater, health qua,tennis courts,swimming pools or similar recieatiooal uses. 3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with die foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Department Director determines to be in thehe2:'R1! sd wR2"Districts 3.5 DRVELOPPARNT{JG STANDARDS Districts. 1 A. Table I 11 sots forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential Districts. B. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD, are to be in aocordaoce with Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yuck, heights,add floor area standards apply to principal structures. C. Off-street • -.' •• C• , • \�wm. shall be accessed by Parkins aisles or dri ,, a. are separate • _ • • which save more than one development./ space area of not ten feet (10') in width as measured frim - .. ►.- • • ,... _ . •. shal separate any pig aisle or driveway froom any • 4001.01118 T . . l •. - •, • . 7 • I 11 D1VAAPMENtrSTANDARDS - 1 RIGH-R1611 aduimataamia MB Maur t+a.Irinrdhr Dwsige 1iatai om Let Ana NIA -,As.e 1 Ac Mielenn Let wl WA WA HA Float Yard•Lttsrad Lod •t 03 BR sot ins 041-111-aM•IM 11,,Bit act hat tesla 25 feet trar2O-in dna 2S tut lne t Toed-Accooaei BM4. 0.5 BR dot Mas 0411il esonoo caRaimunt, heeYiihaidatBMsoaare Om 25 foot +6ea•aifest rhsa 2S�� Frost Yana-VaniaAtat Dein BR hest Yard•Am ase/ SO l+i A jf(d Tarr! 03 Bear Yard lriaegal 0.3 BH soar Yard Aooeesri 15 4 IQ 3.2 2/28/06 revision .... . .. .. OR: 4368 PG: 2416 .........-.. r---- tmind....Mg Hsi& 20 Aeries tor itwir as 11 i height 4200 ket 62 Memel Between Peledpal fifevelleros 0.5 SIIII Orriaiirflef4SID flailiakit , iierwlkissi jeedifigi flees Area Min. (S.P.) 11100 SIF UMW _ linaiLM IAS( He**BMW.height eholl be Ws weed durum weaseted from the ant hebialie Welshed floor elevolos es , die uppermost auleied milks dordires tithe stretiore. . # . , SIM 0Aoll of Bandiall MOO: Coldimi balk d two adjscas belifingt for the reposes of deectiolisies steed i I reosisoeueeta. i Al defteces we is fret mho otherwise sow& .1 lbws pees ail be swasered es follow A. Mho prod is weld by a Rabe right-ii-way.labs&is soessersd Irmo dm edjeced Mild-of-vrey la. B. Wilms mad is served by a primes mad.mama is ammentel frees de berk of odds Of codost)or edge at pevamod 01 set embed). •2 Badly Might Om tie Berth peoperty Wee adjamot to Mbar'DM laths"110."mew dna be 12 411 dories kr a mmizems froisbi of 1.71 410 frue. 10----------1(M10 # - 43 Mom buddies,Mob a ensoome -w-mtsiegritro)er°Om gem am medset,md mills we sot wad to age weber,the setheeb seleeett-: k - Z -., ..1'29"Callillajlig"41118"111141"1111111U11.1111"1111"All ti.... '....d . *....,/ ...... ,k , ,...s 'S 7Tif E ClIC i 3.3 2/28/08 revision 1 I , 1 i 1 il il ., i , I . , iisi ...., I: na yasdati SAW+ i',HI I < 1 I.; ' .i b -.I-_Q o:h.,:g.) VI r• z 11 1 ii I 1 111 41 II 1 II I Ili 1111111 swniNiwoalloo < .,; -,t I- ,., 01;1 it, il ii 1, f It 1.1 it. ....•"' i I IlL,: I iii,,:liiiiii ”:11o1)..: ILI— AV9 V31VN X :4 ''' • gniti la g 3"'g ... / .. 1 i 11 1 i 1 1 . N. i te/ ! J ' : fr ' 1 000 Al % : . Al --: -:: - , I • • ' ,,,' I '', +."......""),. 1 ,___*.• i , a •i 11.11Milliw MN: I. :1 1 a - i it ' 1 ' I 0 re.9" ____. i ,,,„ , .' -------fl ID _ , • AIX , 1: II A ___, _ 1__ . _ t , (-- ---- ' P i L , ..' • f „ 4:E3 ---> 0 : \\ , r,---- 111 4• 1. Ej L,. .,13 0 77.'-'.-----',/ , 1 I ' i., n ---- tr i ‘/ ‘' / / 41 .--- , i I/ - I.- _ _ .--,1 _..„ __. 1 . / , . 1 \ ,. ''-----,z-__-_-„, ,______ L , __ _El _rii.....a--— a \ A .s7 I. \air --.• es , a L. D \ .0 ,,,,, ,. to4,- ./..9,s 0 us)? a ; a i .1W774 . . -1'.• •—_—_ - --t 1 a i AIM a - ... 6=4 CI A I il „.„ .. a ' i ""i ' foil I , 0 L*----4'l"----4 I 0 '7/7 e. 1111:1 :- .• -1 i, MIL:11" 1.E.t.i. I:1g, low,.., i - , . 0 ..- ,. „ r ... h ;........m.'",..{ —4- , a ri.1 _. . ,...1. Ir 1; ,•' t ;• '. ' .. , - .- --- ------- - ------------ - --- __ ___ -- _ -----tet__ — Wu: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 11C 111 $21.00 Cull TO tU MAID UCOIDID in tke 0??ICAC 11COZD3 of COLLIZZ COM, 11 COINS 11.00 111110TTIC1 411 11001 06/101200! at 10:4111 Dfl ? 1. 110CI, CLLR( ZIT 7240 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this NV.%day of , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle Viand WHEREAS, the PUD i ion is also sommst ferred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD; and WHEREAS, Lodgl fil l4 d o -ee of I Turentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, F741-1-i4 �• e "•�� ty' i4iin concerning the proposed i ti amendment to the PUD's Bal gle Management Pik; 2I/e being styled Lodge Abbott • Associates. LLC v. Collier Couno4 Ena WHEREAS, on or around May 1—,--2U0437—Lodge Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Hams, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Harris Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.;and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4x1) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. ` As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy,Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses ‘,,C7 described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this r.✓ jar requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area orol� ever discontinued or abandoned for any reason, then all of the G . including wi i t \tion the entire golf course /; development area, except fur tlos- ov for th• tvito (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green opn •07y, to\the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the ar i -. "I I • 'pre!). , e1risions to these restrictive covenants will require a supe ity vote of the Bo f F,Aupy Commissioners. / 9. To fully satisfy i �dflt j tdewalks along adjacent off-site ILL L alt public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway en (10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006)in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST;:• BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGIR E,$ROCK,CLERK COLLIER CS Y,F ORIDA ' - - By �l �ji""�� By: _ 1i : .. a •tQ Chit r -.uty lerk TOM ENNING,C • I' • ' signature °AO�i,''• WI SES; 7' kig-e--- Signed Name I C410.4 7: P20esEzOck Print‘'.4 Name / • i ag2...A..„.....„. Si.� s Name i S =w BOTT ASSOCIATES,LLC �L ,/J/J Ll/Q�� ITS: ,1: t ,.,s‘ Printed Name -- Ap. .ved as to form i and e• - 1; - cr''. c_Jirl-7 N Je ! A. KI To ow 'Coy Atto y Ajp4._________//sLikir? 41EC iRC 9 2/28/08 revision ;mail-FW:,DFVLP 5699-Rupnow J RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay NI Grnail FW: DEVLP 5699 - Rupnow / RE: Questions / Cocohatchee Bay - Kalea Bay Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:57 AM ScavoneMichelle<MichelleScavone d©colliergov.net> To: "rupnowdiane@gmail.com <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>, Sco tC ri < hri S OttDecCoin gov.net>, BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>, LevyMichael <MichaelLevy@ 9 <ConnieDeane@colliergov.net>, BlevinsCaroline <CarolineBlevins@colliergov.net>, McKennaJack <JackMcKenna@colliergov.net>, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>, FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net> Mrs.Rupnow, Staff has received your correspondence titled Course Parcel"uestions and Kalea Bay" and have provided the en Eden on the Lakes Homeowners Have Regarding the Cocohatchee Bay following responses.For clarity purposes,your specific questions are provided below with staff responses in bold. 1. How many acres of wetlands have been cleared for the "golf course"? How many acres of wetlands have been preserved? Does that meet the minimum requirement? Mitigation? RESPONSE: Permitting for wetland areas, including mitigation for impcted wetlands, are Perm t for the entire site. Per handled at the State level.The site has an existing Environmental Resource the Settlement Agreement/Planned Unit Development(PUD),the development is required to provide 308.0+/- acres of Open Space (Preserve,Lakes and Landscape Buffers);the development currently has 292.09-acres within existing Collier County Conservation Easements(CCCE), 5.78- acres of retained wetlands and 1.46-acres of retained uplands outside of the CCCE, 8.20-acres in Lakes and 1.41-acres in landscaped buffers (308.94-acres total). 2. Has the gopher tortoise colony been relocated? If not, how is it being protected? RESPONSE:The Gopher Tortoises within the impact areas were relocated offsite to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FW thethose burrows sites. have been fenced in for burrows remain in the upland preserve nearthe pond protection. 3. Where will people park when they come to golf? Where will entrance/exit be? Show me https:/Imail.google.com/mailPui=2&ik=515654168x&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8do5259of6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 1 of ?mail-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay on current plans. RESPONSE:The Site Development Plan (SDP) for the golf course development(AR-694)identifies a future clubhouse area that is accessed from US41. No parking areas were approved as part of the SDP approval. Per the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD, Section 4.3 F. parking will be provided based on the size of the clubhouse and will include the golf course parking. A Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) is required for any future clubhouse and associated parking. 4. Will the tunnel under Vanderbilt Drive atesth t Glused? en In has 67?5' of buffer adjacent toyou it o clarify buffers.The Settlement Agreement and that the developer has 100' of buffer. That land was originally intended for Livingston Road construction to connect Vanderbilt to 41. RESPONSE:The Tunnel shown on the approved' tionsns forth4s mprovementSThe approved SDP P (AR- 9 ) notes that it ito be completed y others.The County has not received any app shows an existing 100' preserve area adjacent to Glen Eden. 5. Has that road been abandoned and has that land been vacated to Glen Eden &developer. Golf course plans [SDP-2001-AR-694] sent from Jack McKenna's office dated October 1, 2015 showed a "200' min. setback for single family en and the golfooucourse PUD drse?/ (TYP)" Does that have anything to do with the buffers between Glen Ed RESPONSE: It appears you are referring to the Preservation Easement/Right-of-Way Reservation that is located north of the Cocohatchee Bay PUD, identified as Tract F of Glen Eden Phase One. That future roadway is not included in the County's Long Range Transportation Plan. In regards to the two residential units allowed in the GC Section of the Plan Unit Development(PUD) Master Plan,they have not been approved as part of the existing SDP (AR-694). If proposed in the future, they would be required to meet the setbacks established in the Settlement Agreement and Section 4.4 of the PUD: 200'from PUD boundaries,col'fromude any course uired district yard.boundaries and private roads.The 200'to a PUD boundary wo ud l sides of the 6. I want you to show me on currentEdenplans HHow much is bthe buffer on letween G C. and Tarpon Cove? roposed golf course. How much is between G.C. & Glen RESPONSE: Per the approved SDP (AR-694)there is an existing 100' preserve arda between ke, berm, golf course and the northern PUD Boundary with Glen Eden.There is an approved landscaping and fence/wall between the golf course on the west side of Tarpon Cove; per the approved SDP,there is approximately 100-150' between boundary of Tarpon Cove asrfuturre ty line. The approved plans identify the area on the northern development. https://mail•google.com/mallPui=2&ik=515654168x&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 2 of mail-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 7. Is parcel 6 used in the G.C. plans—how? Road? RESPONSE:There is no parcel 6 shown on the approved plans. 8. So, when the developer shows up requesting a change in the rooftop, size of the lakes or distance between buildings, who in the Planning Dept. checks the request against the "acceptable deviations" in the Settlement Agreement before the request is approved or denied? RESPONSE: Staff would review any proposed changes to the site plan for consistency with the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD.The Planning Director and Zoning Manager would be the authority to determine if any deviations are acceptable. 9. (I looked at plans submitted to the SFWMD and those plans show tennis courts and guest suites in that area. Shouldn't the plans show the same land usage in that area? The diagram on the Kalea Bay website also shows tennis courts and guest suites in that area.) Which plans show the TRUTH??? RESPONSE:The west side of Vanderbilt Drive,on the northern portion of the PUD,have been approved with Tennis,guest cottages, parking and a maintenance building with the SDPA, PL20150000420. 10. We would like to see a plan of the entire Kalea Bay complex—not just Tower One. RESPONSE:The current development is split into three separate Site Development Plans.The golf course, east of Vanderbilt Drive,is included in AR-694. Building 1,the Clubhouse,tennis courts, guest cottages and maintenance building is included in SDPA-PL20150000420, Kalea Bay Phase I. Buildings 2-5, Kalea Bay Phase II-VI was originally approved by SDP-AR-5284 and is currently being amended by SDPA, P120160002242 (currently under review). 11. Where are we in the permitting process on the land east of Vanderbilt? Is there a time limit on completing the "golf course?" Are these plans approved forever or do they ever expire? When do they expire? RESPONSE:The area east of Vanderbilt has an approved SDP,AR-694 and is currently under construction. Once construction has commenced,the permits/plans are considered active. All infrastructure improvements within 30 months of the pre-construction meeting and any subsequent extension, per LDC 10.02.03 H.3. 12. Where are we in the site plan for Kalea Bay west of Vanderbilt? Does Tower 2 have all its permits in place and approved? RESPONSE:Towers 2-5 are currently under review for SDPA approval (P120160002242). https://mail.google.com/mailOui=2&ik=515654168x&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 3of' .mail-FW:,DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions I Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 13. (*** If you go to the Kalea Bay website and look at the diagram of the towers,they appear to be much closer together than on the SDP's.)How can that be okay? RESPONSE: Setbacks are based on the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD Section 3.5 Table II. Per the approved PUD,the,minimum separation between structures is half the building height; however, buildings with common architectural theme that areangled,de administratively reduced. or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another,the setbacks nan The SDPA under review shows buildings with a separation of at least 100' measured from the towers and 72' measured between parking structures. 14. How do cabanas and guest suites and tower manager's homes affect the maximum 590 density? RESPONSE: Cabanas and guest suites are considered permitted uses and are not counted as dwelling units. On behalf of Christopher 0. Scott,AICP, LEED-AP Planning Manager - Development Review Michelle Scavone, GMD Operations Coordinator From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 4:00 PM To: BosiMichael Subject: Questions Dear Mike, Thanks for meeting with me today. I am attaching the list of questions we have about the Cocohatchee Bay golf course and the Kalea Bay towers project. Please forward them to Jack McKenna or Matt McClean or the proper person who can answer these questions for us. https:llmail.google.comlmailOur=2&ik=515654168x&view=Pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 4 of email-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29117,3:15 PM In reviewing the responses below for Diane I think there is a problem with the answer to Question 13. The separation between buildings is 0.5 the Sum of Building Height, not Building Height. Attached is how I understood this requirement when presented to the Planning Commission when I was a member. Brad Schiffer AIA 239.254.0285 FYI I received this response from County Growth Management Dept. today. Please read and provide your feedback. Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Forwarded message From: ScavoneMichelle <MichelleScavone@colliergov.net> Date: Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:57 AM Subject: FW: DEVLP 5699 - Rupnow / RE: Questions/ Cocohatchee Bay- Kalea Bay To: "rupnowdiane@gmail.com" <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>, ScottChris<ChrisScott@colliergov.net>, BosiMichael <MichaelBosi©colliergov.net>, LevyMichael <MichaelLevy c©Dcolliergov.net>, DeaneConnie <ConnieDeane@colliergov.net>, BlevinsCaroline <CarolineBlevins@colliergov.net>, McKennaJack <JackMcKenna@colliergov.net>, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>, FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net> Mrs.Rupnow, Staff has received your correspondence titled"Questions Glen Eden on the Lakes Homeowners Have Regarding the Cocohatchee Bay"Golf Course Parcel" and Kalea Bay" and have provided the following responses.For clarity purposes,your specific questions are provided below with staff responses in bold. https://mail.google.corn/mailpui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 6 of ,mall-F.W:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17,:3:1b YM Thanks! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:18 PM To: Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>, David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>, Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>, Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>, Ralf Brookes <Ralf@ralfbrookesattorney.com> Cc:jodiebert@reagan.com, brad@taxis-usa.com, Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>, nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Bcc: "feegroup@aol.com"<feegroup@aol.com> FYI I received this response from County Growth Management Dept.today. Please read and provide your feedback. Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 [Quoted text hidden) Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com> Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:33 PM To: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> FYI Brad Schiffer AIA 239.254.0285 From: Brad Schiffer AIA [mailto:brad@TAXIS-usa.comi Sent: Sunday,January 29, 2017 3:33 PM To: 'MichaelBosi@Colliergov.net' <MichaelBosi@Colliergov.net>; 'ChrisScott@Colliergov.net' <C h ri sScott@ Co l l ie rgov.n et> Subject: RE: FW: DEVLP 5699 - Rupnow/ RE: Questions/ Cocohatchee Bay- Kalea Bay https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 5 of Gmaii-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17, 3:15 PM 13. (*** If you go to the Kalea Bay website and look at the diagram of the towers,they, appear to be much closer together than on the SDP's.)How can that be okay? RESPONSE: Setbacks are based on the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD Section 3.5 Table II. Per the approved PUD, the minimum separation between structures is half the building height; however, buildings with common architectural theme that are angled,skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another,the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The SDPA under review shows buildings with a separation of at least 100' measured from the towers and 72' measured between parking structures. On behalf of Christopher O.Scott,AICP,LEED-AP Planning Manager - Development Review Michelle Scavone, GMD Operations Coordinator 2 attachments PUD Table 1.pdf —1 75K distance between buildings.pdf 42K https://mail.googie.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 7 of; attachment 919x638 pixels Sports enthusiasts will also have plenty to cheer t.=;. for, from Florida Everblades Hockey and arena fti football with championship-winning Florida Tarpons at nearby Germain Arena or Spring Training baseball games with the Boston Red Sox and Minnesota Twins in Fort Myers in nearby Fort Myers. There's also great tennis, sport fishing, power boat races and even the world famous swamp buggy races on the "Mile of Mud" at Florida SouThwes:For da is farrec as The Golf Caoi:al of Sports Park. Of course, no sport may enjoy greater the Worlc. local significance than golf. With its prolific per capita composite of public and private holes, the region has been heralded as "The Golf Capital of the World." Southwest Florida is home to some of the finest fairways on the planet and fortunately, quite a few can be found close to Kalea Bay. From the courses of Cypress Woods, Eagle Lake, Heritage Bay and Naples Beach Hotel to that of Tiburon at the Ritz Carlton Golf Resort, (home of the annual Franklin Templeton Shootout), Kalea Bay is positioned in the epicenter of a golfer's paradise. For all that's been referenced, bear in mind this is just a fraction of what can be found close to Kalea _ _rY4-.Bay. Families will appreciate the proximity to -+ schools, supermarkets, parks, churches, s; healthcare services and more. There's still much is more in outdoor activities, entertainment and rhprichprl rnmmtinity p;rpntt that takes nlarp P3 (-13 s I rcT)1 ,e ',:i „4 _--.-+ (6' CD 06 a -0. 0-• 0 a' D. * 5: a -----.: a0 0 (7) ,a) 0 00 op0 OCDw a ow -0a 0 -.. cn .5- 3 eD 3 3- (1) o c o o. 0 CD CD O D -4- ZD- aj- 7--,-+- 0- 0- '-< (D --, 0 c ---0, -< 7 0 .... - D D-JD (D . o .., C 9 0 c E X E 0 ii3 (cf3 a x ...... (5+' (f+ u) 4, -4. D z =:. 00 1-,,- 5" 5 -is --zr: 0 , C CD 00- 3 z a0 0 In --4. -4.• 0 ..."` 3 o3- CO -0 CD .5, T)--CD D. ..-+- 0 ° 0 30 0 FIT a E. (,)3 Cn 3 (D 3 ° ....(.— * ..+- 0 3 D. cr) 3 0 Dc 0x cn ii5- c = :•-• 0 CA --, 0 -‹ -4, -,, CO -(Pt' 0 cD -0 0 E N) (.0 co 0 0 = (1) cn c-ii- di (no cr) 3- 0- 8 a CD 0 CD t"'"I • --3 -3 CD cD cp — D -t cn a -% R 8 < u) _4_ u) 0 (i5' 0 D 3 (f) ,-,-- 0 0 of) 0 = n 00 cn . c 6 0 --4: 0- CD - Z Fn % Ft- 0 0 -- 9'. - < 41 C 0 -4- --, Er"). 0 0 < 3 2 .. O a ci. a 0 cn 6 Cn a — o , CCDCD (D D ii3- 0 a D. 30 p PCJ 0 0D Cl:) 3• (0 Z (0 ET (i) -0 a 3 a CD. 37c- (5 c) Sp.. a D -0 C0 * 0 .CD ( 8.•< 3. (.0 a 5 3 Cn (I) 0 cri ET; ... - Cl) =4= 0 0 c CD D 0- 0) D"CR 0-0 -1 0 ,-,Z 0 3 a) 0 0 3-• 3 -t cr) En CD 0 0 a O 0 o Fi 5 O a) 0 0) ci) 0 a) 3 -< G--) 7 -0 0 00 DC 00 a 0 5 D -..74,- a 5.),Z 5 0 =c Ty- 0 0 P-- FiT 0 .-+ < C) 0 ..-6 3- 0 < 0 0 P ann /1Corrynis.5 1.6 n January 11, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think it's a good point to bring up, because it brought up a lot of discussion we needed to have about habitable. And Mr. Yovanovich has even provided a new definition of habitable, at some point we have to look at today. Although it turns out there are definitions in some of our codes, twice, two instances in fact, and they're in the code of laws. And by the way, like you just said, the applicant is in line with what those definitions fit. Let's go back to 10 first and see if there's anything that we need to discuss in paragraph 10 that we don't feel we finished last time or that's subject to the underlined and crossed out sections of the paragraph we have in front of us today based on the county attorney's draft language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, we were submitted a new development standard for the multi-family high-rise buildings. It actually says -- I guess R-1 is the zone on it. Could we put that up on the monitor? This is something that was submitted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got the SDP -- he's got the table from the SDP, not the development standard table, but the standard that was supplied in the SDP package. It was a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And my conversation is going to be on setbacks. There is one concern I have in that the setbacks for roads I wanted to review. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, you'll tell me if this is the right document, please. Is that the right one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it is. Rich, see the line, it's the third one down, the front yard distance from the internal road. It says it's going to be 50 percent of the building height, which we know in our case is 100 feet. The buildings are 200 feet tall. Building two, three, four have a distance less than that. Is that a Page 46 January 11, 2008 problem? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, could you repeat your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you look at the standards, the front yard internal road setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is for the R-1 standards table? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, multi-family. You'll see that the requirement is for 100 feet, and some of those are -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, the explanation is, is that is measured to the garage, not the high-rise portion of the building, okay? So that's where those distances are equal to the garage. And as you know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The garage isn't that tall. So there isn't a problem. Second thing, put up -- you sent us a drawing that shows the site lines. And if you could focus in on the plan that's on the upper left side. It's a site plan called key map. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that the one you're referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, blow up the plan in the lower right. And the reason I'm looking at that is that does -- upper left, I'm sorry. It's called key map. If you could make that the full screen, that would be best. Maybe a little less screen. And my concern is that, we discussed this last time, is the setbacks. The setbacks in the development standards are to be one-half the combined height of the units. Well, I like the one with the black, that's why I was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You like the black one better? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it points out my concern. And my concern is that the setbacks in the development plan call for 200-foot setback. The buildings are all 200 foot in height. Added together, you get 400 feet. Divide it by two you get 200 feet. And these setbacks are a lot closer. Page 47 January 11, 2008 You're requesting us to allow to bring it down to 100 feet. And the concern is this is going to be just one wall of buildings as you go up Vanderbilt Beach Drive. Now, I know where you're coming from, you're going to say well, we twisted the buildings. We have -- first of all, I don't think the site plan would show the buildings parallel -- the walls parallel met the setback to begin with. So all along through this whole process the setbacks were never -- between buildings, distance between buildings were never being met. What you actually did in the current design is you kind of rotated them a little bit and, you know, even -- again I go back to this October 9th letter from PMS, Inc. and it says that, you know, that the buildings didn't meet it. They were stating that in their -- and she states, however, the buildings have been slightly rotated to ensure compliance with the development standards. So the concern I have is that I don't think the development standards -- I think the development standard is intended for the setbacks as described in the chart, in the table, which would essentially produce a square of open space between the units. What you're asking for is to allow that to be brought down to half that dimension, or essentially half a square between them, which will give these things the appearance of a wall when you look at it from different vistas on Vanderbilt. So you're requesting that in here. So why are you requesting that, to make the site plan buildable or a desire or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: To make it buildable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in the original layout it did not meet the standards shown? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I -- before Richard answers, could you show me what part of the settlement agreement you're referring to that they're asking for that's different than what they already received in the PUD? Page 48 January 11, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In 10, the minimum separation of the habitable portion of the building shall be one-half the sum of the height of the habitable portion of the building, not to exceed 100 f t of separation for the habitable portion of the building. a again is First of all, putting in there the one-half of the height hag just -- that's a teaser, because you know you can't make . httI So the concern is that -- the problem is that theneighbors, think, and I wasn't on the board then, I don't know what testimony was. But the intention was is to have these buildings spaced apart by pushing them up against each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still trying to get to -- I'm trying to understand where you're going. I'm sure Richard could answer it, but it may not help me try to figure out where you're going. If that's possible, I'd like to. I think the sentence you're referring to should have been where it changed, if I remember correctly from our last dlscussion sum of the height of begins on Page 7, buildings shall be one-halfthe habitable portion of the buildings and shall be a minimum of 100 feet of separation for the habitable portion of the buildings. feet. And if I recall correctly, it was never not to exceed That would be ridiculous. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I'm reading that -- one of the other comments I had further, Mark, is that the way it's written, it's actually locking it to be less than 100 feet does that fix CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you about putin, your problem? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I think that if the project was sold to have a 200-foot separation between buildings, it should not have a 100-foot separation between buildings. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, it was never sold that way. The commission saw -- at that time saw the entire PUD document. And in that PUD document it provided for a mechanism to reduce the Page 49 January 11, 2008 separation of structures. And it said there had to be skeweda common architectural theme and the buildings need to bebasically not parallel. So the commission saw this. We provided an exhibit when we did the neighborhood meetings. Yet if you look at the exhibit, you could see that the structures were not 200 feet apart, we were only going about-- did we have a line on there that says the distance between buildings? No. But if you looked at the scale that was on that drawing, you would see that these buildings were not 200 feet apart. So I don't think we ever sold this as they were going to be 200 feet apart, else we wouldn't have had the common architectural language in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the common architectural language, let's make that simple. You're building the exact identical building. We could discuss whether that's good or bad. I personally wonder. So it's obviously common, they're twins. Everything, everybody is going to look alike, according to your SDP. MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, they're quintuplets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they're quintuplets. So we don't have to worry about them being a common architectural theme, they're identical. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've covered that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the concern is though -- but I think there's a clause in there that I know you're hanging on, and that is that if you do skew the buildings or twist them, then you can move -- the buildings can have less than the dimensions shown. Now, I think what that means from a planner, and Susan's our chief planner, that you have a spacing required. Yes, you can twist them a little bit, and if that does cause that dimension to be less, that's not a problem. I don't think it means no setbacks or no separation once you twist them. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're not trying for no separation. Page 50 January 11, 2008 We're just trying to implement the provision in the code -- I'm sorry, the PUD, that already says if you do these things we can minimize, reduce the building separation. I provided some language in an e-mail that says it has to be a minimum of 100 feet for the habitable tower portion of the structure, the parking garages will still meet their one-half the sum of the building height. We don't think under this site plan, frankly, that it's going to look like a wall of buildings. We think that it's going to look very nice. I mean, frankly, they're angled all the way up. The only issue that you were raising is there were two buildings that arguably were not skewed and they were parallel. So we wanted to make it clear, we didn't want to get into an argument down the road, you know, parallel means one thing in geometry. And I think I told you the last time I was here I wasn't very good at geometry. But once you skew it one degree, you're no longer parallel. And we just wanted to say, listen, you're going to end up with buildings that are a minimum 100 feet apart on the towers. We think from a view corridor coming down Vanderbilt Road with the landscaping buffer that we provided you, this is going to look fine, it's going to look nice, it implements the existing PUD, and it wasn't a change to the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But back to what you said earlier, Richard, I think much like -- remember when I wanted you to look at this drawing, you wanted us to look at the other drawing, you can't see the building masses on those other drawings? I think most people would not notice the distance. Obviously I had to take out a scale to see what the distance was on the submitted PUD to find out what they are. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here in a little bit. So if we could get to some point you feel we can break, Page 51 January 11, 2008 Brad -- Mark -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he walked away, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I know that. No, Pm just suggesting if you at some point -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can take a break any time you want. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I was just answering my client's question. eve i h�� t-ke re-- • • COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Anyway, my concern is that we put a chart in the table, that's really what prevails. And the exhibit, you know, there's a lot of caveats on it stating that it's subject to change and all the other things. So I think anybody relying on that data would be relying on the table. I think what the table means, and we can get some testimony from staff, that there's a massing expected. In this case everybody ex ected a square of open space between these buildings that, yes, if you rotated them or did something like that, of course the corners might swing in less to that dimension. So in other words, if it's 190, 180 feet once you rotate them -- let me wait till the side bar is over. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, we could debate this point probably all day. The PUD says what the PUD says. There's a footnote that specifically allows for the buildings to get closer together if you meet the criteria of the PUD. We're not asking for any changes of the PUD document related to building separation. What we simply are trying to do is make it less ambiguousthe for both staff and us and for the general public to understand what separation will be. And what we're saying is it will be a minimum separation for that livable portion of the building of 100f debate the t. I wasn't prepared and didn't think we were going to original PUD document. It was adopted, we're implementing it. We're. trying to make it clear. Had they not wanted -- if there had been an Page 52 January 11, 2008 intent that you would never be able to reduce the building separation, there wouldn't have been that footnote. And candidly, there would be a provision in the Land Development Code itself that allows for common architectural theme to result in the reduction of building separation from the minimum standards. It would have said thou shalt never be closer than 200 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here. And we'll come back at 10:15. questions Vigliotti and Ms. Caron both have at some point in this issue. So when we get back, Brad can finish with his. We'll get into Mr. Vigliotti's and Ms. Caron and we'll go from there. 10:15 we'll return. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, we'll resume the meeting where we had left off. And Mr. Schiffer was workingon on ts Pa some questions concerning the last two sentences on r finish- es,rhes, Mrg e 6 and on Page 7 of the settlement agreement. Aft Vigliotti was next, and then Ms. Caron. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. go back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess, Rich,a sectionjust to to of code One thing, you mentioned that in the LDC there's -- and again, this that says if you have a common architectural county, one of its problem is it makes everything g look the same, but we'll assume that's good, that's a given -- that if you rotate it you can reduce the separation between buildings. Is that -- I don't think that's in the LDC. There is something similar to that about clustering but -- that's under -- the common MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and architectural theme talks about clustering. You go through a conditional use process. We went through a public hearing PUD process, so there was a public hearing process that occurs. don't believe there And I don't believe -- and I could be wrong, Page 53 January 11, 2008 is any requirement for either skewing or rotating the buildings to meet the definition of common architectural theme for clustering. So instead of what you see on the visualizer where you have the buildings angled away from Vanderbilt Road, you could probably line them all up on Vanderbilt Road and really create the wall that you're fearful we'll be creating. Now, I think you have to look at all of this together. We have landscape requirements that we've provided for you. And this is actually the sight line study that shows you, as you're driving down or walking down Vanderbilt Drive, you're not going to see the buildings. So if you're not going to see the buildings, what's the impact on this necessary space between the buildings? Now, from a distance, I don't care where you are, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet, if you're a half a mile away, the buildings are going to look close together, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet. So I think if you look at what we're doing, we are meeting the requirements in the existing PUD; we are further away from Vanderbilt Drive than the minimum required; we have met the skewing and the common architectural theme. We're not asking to change the PUD, we're just asking to make it clear that the minimum distance has to be 100 feet. Because frankly, probably under the PUD we can get even closer, which I believe was one of your concerns when we talked the last time. I believe you asked me, Rich, can't you guys theoretically get within a couple of feet of each building. And we've said no. And we've answered that by saying the towers have got to at least be 100 feet from each other. So we thought we had addressed a lot of the concerns while 1 staying consistent with the existing adopted PUD• maybe, if it down. Because the wayMark,that aA clause really reads is if that if you meet certain conditions it can be 5 J5 Q tt Page 54 January 11, 2008 administratively reviewed. Again, you know my opinion is that the intent of something like that from a planning concept, not from just looking at words and playing Philadelphia lawyer, from a planning concept, that means that if a building rotates, that would tend to close dimensions, and the dimensions would swing in. And if you do that, you won't be penalized because of the fact that you've skewed the building. But let me ask Susan, because she's the one that would be making that judgment. Or Ross might be. Richard, let Ross -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm sony. I thought he was going to sit over there. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, zoning and land dvelopment review. Susan's asked me to address this issue for you. The way we understand the PUD is -- well, the basic question is, is the reduction in setbacks or separation of structures limited by the PUD document? And the answer is no, the separation is unlimited. I can't see'any grounds in there for intent to reduce it a certain amount, or it would have been specified. So the question I ask myself is does the applicant have the right to do what he did? And the answer was yes. There simply is nothing that limits the amount of reduction. , COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Ross, you think what that meant -- here's what I think it meant. I think it meant that if you have two buildings, you have a separation, in this case a square, that if those buildings rotate, they close in on each other a little bit. And that's what that means, that essentially the scale of the project -- remember, I'm talking purely in the planning concept of buildings and mass -- that the scale of the project stays the same but the dimensions do close slightly when you rotate them. So when you're telling me that clause meant -- and this was what was given to the public as a development standard, that if you slightly skew your buildings, which is what they've done, you have no side Page 55 January 11, 2008 setback requirement anymore? MR. GOCHENAUR: Basically that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Really? MR. GOCHENAUR: Correct. Now, as far as the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From a planning concept you really feel -- MR. GOCHENAUR: As far as the intent. When the PUD wasd the approved, I don't think we're going to find anything that exp intent as far as a possible reduction in the amount or the distance. I think it was unlimited. It's unlimited here. I don't see where we have the right to tell the applicant that there's a limit to which he can reduce that separation. It's simply not stated in here's the point. And this e. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But will be the last time. I don't want to be redundant. But I thinkbas planners, not as reading little words and, you know, reading between ee lines, is that when you describe through the table the separationbe these buildings to have essentially a square of space between them, that if you rotate those buildings a little bit, that square can open or close a little bit. You're saying that they essentially tricked us then by giving us a table, giving us a setback, knowing all the time that they're never Mdthey're never going to hit that dimension. . going hit that description, yMR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, I'm not suggesting anyone was tricked. But I am saying that the board approved the setbacks as they appear in this table. And that reading these, without full knowledge of the intent or any real intimate knowledge of the PUD rezone itself, have to say that this is the way I feel constrained to apply it. And don't think Susan disagrees with that, which is why she asked me to explain this to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So as the gwho made the administrative decision that if a building in this case was slightly skewed, that eliminated the requirement for building separation? Page 56 January 11, 2008 MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, that's my understanding of this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At our last meeting we discussed this particular point in depth. I believe almost everybody weighed in at different points, we spent a lot of time on it. What I had said is I'm not happy about it, I don't like it, but it's in the PUD. We're not here to change the PUD, nor can we. I just think it's something we have to live with and move on. And I believe it was the consensus of most of us, as I said, that it is the way it and we have to live with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a comment and then I've got a comment. Ms. Caron, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and it will be a comment at this point -- well, actually, I'll ask a question first to the county attorney. Do you agree that staff has no authority to make a judgment on the separation of these buildings? MR. KLATZKOW: I think -- just for visually, because I'm more of a visual person, if your buildings were like this and you required 200 feet, okay, and then they said you can make it slightly askew and thereby build them like this, I think that's an absurd interpretation. I think what the -- I think the way it reads is that there's discretion here -- and that includes this board as well because you're making recommendations to the board here, that if they're going to make this slightly skewed, that yes, they can reduce this, that's appropriate. The Question is how much of a reduction is appropriate4 And that's my view on that. Now, the planning director disagrees with that, and that's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you for that. Because Page 57 January 11, 2008 I think this is a critically important discussion to be having because this is not going to affect just this project. This will affect projects coming down the road. And if we suddenly decide that we have no authority -- no planning authority to decide whether 250 -- what in realitywill be 251-foot plus buildings could essentially be five feet apart, the absurdity of that judgment is just beyond me. . If this board thinks that 100 feet, when it should be 200 feet, is the correct way to go, then you'll make that decision. But I agree with Mr. Schiffer, that we're going to end up with essentially a wall of buildings 100 -- you know, barely 100 feet apart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had a comment I wanted to make. And I saw this sentence telling us that the applicant had agreed that the buildings would never be less than 100 feet apart. I don't know why the applicant wanted to do that, because basically the PUD stands on itself and they probably have a very good case on that footnote if they y wanted to make one, regardless. So I'm wondering, to get off this point, because we're only discussing it because of these two sentences in the PUD that now with staffs testimony here today and the clarifications that have come out of discussion today by staff, why do you need these two sentences? You still got the PUD that dominates, and we're off the discussion and we go on to the rest of the paragraphs. So I'm asking the applicant, originally I saw a version of this document with those two sentences struck, because apparently someone at one time felt the PUD stood on its own. I understand your position in trying to voluntarily minimize the distance in which they could be put at, but it looks like that's causing a lot more controversy than the effort may have been worth. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will tell you, we think the benefit of that sentence is both to us and to the county so when there's personnel changes over time, there always are, or different people sitting in your seats, people could interpret the document differently. And we would Page 58 January 11, 2008 like that certainty because, candidly, we need to know that this site development plan will be approved, or something similar to it if changes happen will be approved in the future and not be subject to a debate over words_in the future. And we thought -- I think staff would prefer to have the clarification so we all know it won't be less than 100 feet. We would like that in the document to provide certainty to us so -- and reasonable minds can disagree about what things mean, and we're just trying to make sure that this is clear that we have certainty in the future. And that's why we've asked to keep that in. I know it's an uncomfortable conversation we're having, but that's why it's in, and we think that it's beneficial to both sides to have that language in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the language only states a minimum. To get to that minimum, you still need to bringin the common architectural theme issue. So the language doesn't t clear up any of the debate about that issue. It simply says you have a minimum of 100 feet that you can get to but you still got to fall back on what the debate has been to get there. So I'm not sure why the sentence helps you, but if you want to leave it in, then we will go forward. I just suggested, since I had seen it struck in the prior version, the first version that was sent to this committee back last year didn't have -- had that struck through as being omitted. Then it was put back in when you all realized it was coming to us, for some reason. But that's fine. It seemed simpler without it. We're on paragraph 10 -- Brad, did you have another question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My comment was, based on Ross's testimony,just take it out. Because we're ultimately going to vote on this thing. I certainly could -- I don't know how we're going to vote, if we vote by number, line item veto kind of thing maybe. But if we vote on this thing as a whole, I would never support that. . Page 59 January 11, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN:,I don't think we're voting on it. I think we're simply making recommendations and we can all, on each recommendation, say we support it or don't support it. We're here to tell -- I thought we were here to describe to the. BCC what the settlement agreement means in interpretation of the -PT3D that they formerly had, the differences. If some of us see this as a different interpretation than what the PUD meant, then that could be our recommendation. Others of us may not see that as a different interpretation. You're focusing on your dislike of a footnote in the PUD, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's a different interpretation. That's all I'm getting at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Make it clear, I'm focusing on, the geometry of the construction of this project. Let me ask Ross one quick question before we jump away. Ross, this is in for SDP, the setbacks are shown. I saw some correspondence where you didn't accept the setbacks because the buildings were parallel but then they slightly skewed them and Therefore triggering that footnote. And you've given us your interpretation of that. Have you signed off on the setbacks of this SDP already? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. They're revising the setbacks not for the high-rises but principally for the clubhouse and the single-family homes. For the high-rises, I've accee ted the resubmittal that revise the setbacks and skewed the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially Richard is concerned about the future generations, you've signed it off, it's a done deal. This clause doesn't mean anything in this agreement anyway, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW:, Let's keep in mind that this is almost like a packe. The settlement agreement and the site development plan are Page 60 January 11, 2008 all going to the board at the same time.. " nd, you know, defining what the setback is in the settlement agreement doesn't -- I don't know really where it gets us anyway, since the site development plan is going to have the setbacks anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the applicant wants to leave it in. We can recommend to take the two sentences out and that can be done with it, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The,concern is not about the present `But if we go in_the future and we determine that we need to make a modification to the site development plan and we move the buildings a foot one way or the other, we don't want to get into a debate again on this issue. We want it to be understood and clear that we can go ahead and reduce the setbacks between the buildings. We don't want -- we don't want to be stuck with, Mr. Yovanovich, you moved it a foot. We think this new group doesn't agree that you're allowed to put buildings closer together. That's why this provision is in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR.. KLATZKOW: Then I'm going to want some clarity. Because my understanding was that we were going to have a final site development plan and that's how this development was going to get built. I'm hearing now that well, maybe we're going to make changes after all this is over to that site development plan. So that what ultimately gets built is not what ultimately is going to go before this board. And I don't -- it's okay by me if it's okay with this board, but that's what we're saying here right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that this settlement agreement is based upon the Approval of the three SDP& Once they're approved, they're done. Are you ging to tell us that there's going to be more_-- well, they'd be outside the settlement�agreement, would they not? H._ MR. YOVANOVICH: They would-be outside the settlement agreement. What we're looking for is clarification of what does the Page 61 January 11, 2008 PUD document mean in this settlement agreement. So if there is a change, people will say, Mr. Yovanovich, you're right, the buildings can be, as long as they meet the common architectural theme. The buildings are not parallel, they are skewed, you can be closer together but not less than 100 feet apart on the residential tower and the parking garages, some of the building height. So when we go in the future, we know we're allowed to do that. No maze, no language of, you know, what is this distance of, you know, what is -- how much skewing do you need to do to meet the intent of this. We want to know that if there is a change, that's how the PUD document will be interpreted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I myself, I thought the PUD language stood on its own. Your bringing it into this document is causing concerns with this panel. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm listening to the public discussion about it and there are people who are less certain that it stands on its own and it's clear. And that's why we're trying to make it clear through the settlement agreement, so in the future we don't have a changing of minds as to what is clear in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments on paragraph 10? If not, we have to figure out how to resolve this paragraph and what kind of recommendation as far as the language goes we need to provide to the county attorney to include in the next draft that is produced. Any comments from the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, what I would prefer we do is remove this language, because -- and let it be something that the administrative staff take care of. If Richard is concerned about a future planner viewing it the way I would view it -- and remember, I have a degree in architecture and planning -- then that's a good concern. Page 62 January 11, 2008 But the point is I would never want it to look like this board endorsed this kind of interpretation of the setback. I don't think it's right,-and I think it should just be struck. '__ - It should not be a problem. Quick, get your administrative stuff in there. And Ross is today's professional and he says that you can do what you want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tend to agree with you in the sense that I don't think the PUD needs any more clarification. I think you can manage yourself under the PUD. That's what you accepted. I don't see the need for these two sentences. I'd just as soon they were gone as well. I just don't see the need for them. I understand your concern, Richard, but you're a capable attorney and I'm sure you could argue whatever rights you had aren't, going to go away whether these two sentences are there or not. Any other comments from anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to say one more thing. Is that when we get PUDs we get a development standard table, which everybody says that's the genetic code of the project. And then we get a drawing that everybody says can be fluctuated quite a bit. The standard really gave everybody the impression of the separation of these buildings. To do what we're doing now I think is a big mistake, the way it's being interpreted. Enough said. I mean, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, when I read a development standards table, and you know I read them all because every single meeting I harp on the footnotes. I read this one. I wasn't here when that one was approved, that was way before my time. But had it been here, I would have known what it meant, I would have known exactly what it meant and what the footnotes mean, because I realize they're critical, they're that important to what this committee approves. So I don't know if when this went through people didn't know what they mean or didn't read it. I sure would have known what it Page 63 January 11, 2008 meant and would have read it, so I'm assuming the other bodies on this board would have done the same thing. So I'm not in your camp in that regard, but I do believe that these two sentences are not needed, and my recommendation would be that they just be struck and not included as part of this settlement agreement. Is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I really agree with that. Do you need a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we need a motion, Mr. Klatzkow, or just consensus? MR. KLATZKOW: At the end I'm going to ask you to go through this so we have certainty as to what these changes are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let's just get a consensus. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, don't you feel that the Board of County Commissioners wanted our opinion on such a thing on whether it's a reasonable distance between structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wanted our opinion on how the settlement agreement differed than the PUD, how it changed the effect of the PUD. That's what they specifically said on the tape that we reviewed. If they wanted our opinion on all the aspects of this project, we could do that. But we would need about a month at the rate we're going and every day of the week to review it. I don't think they wanted theythat if we sent it to them. focus. nor would be able to read So we need to stick to the Look at the settlement agreement, look at the issues in the settlement agreement and describe to the BCC how they vary from the PUD language that's already been approved or suggest remedies to that effect. And that's what I think we need to be focusing on. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But shouldn't we see what the consensus is as far as this_board is concerned relative to the separation somewhere along the line, whether i't's now or done at the end of the Page 64 January 11, 2008 hearings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think this is a popularity vote on the PUD's application. If it is, then that's -- we can do that, but I'm not going to take part in it because I don't think that was part of the direction this board was given. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I wasn't talking about a popularity report, I was talking about something that's whether ifs good planning or bad planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that differs too amongst the people and the experience they have on this board -- or experience in that field. And I'm not sure everybody has the expertise to opine on what's good and bad planning from a perspective we'd be looking at this. Because we certainly haven't gone in, analyzed the PUD in regards to the presentations at the time and weighed in on the way this is utilized in other parts of either this county or the parts of Florida. So those are areas I don't see where this board had the --needs to get into. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Frankly, I prefer the language out. The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going ask for a -- I'm going to go down the line as far as recommending removal of this language. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself, yes. Page 65 January 11, 2008 Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yew CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will be the recommendation on paragraph 10. We now can move on to paragraph 11. Paragraph 11 didn't have any -- had a small change, and changed the word shall to may. Although I think there's a couple of changes in the last sentence that we just evolved out of the discussion we had on single-family where says 1,200 square feet, it says each single-family dwelling unitshall be set back a minimum of 200 feet from the north and east boundaries.f That should read, all structures shall be set back a minimum 200 feet from all boundaries of the PUD project. MR. YOVANOVICH: And maybe it could even be simpler, is that I believe we provided you a development standards table for the single-family homes. Perhaps we could just refer to it as an exhibit instead of-- we would just say the single-family standards shall be as depicted in exhibit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, because we're not dealing with the issue of just single-family in regards to that portion of the sentence. We're dealing with setbacks from all PUD boundaries to be 200 feet. Which goes back to your fence discussion that we went in length and you got a comfort level that a fence was not an accessory structure. Basically, what we'd be saying is all structures would have to have at least a 200-foot setback from PUD boundaries, not just single-family as you're suggesting now in a single-family developments standards table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. Page 66 DIMENSIONS OF KALEA BAY TOWERS Paragraph 2 in the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement states, "This agreement and release expressly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control." Details of how the PUD would be developed were in 3 SDP's. In 2007, the Commissioners directed the Planning Commission to review the proposed Settlement Agreement in context of the PUD as well as the existing Land Development Code regulations. Details of discussions the Planning Commission had with Rich Yovanovich regarding all aspects of the PUD can be read in a transcript of their January 11 , 2008 Planning Commission meeting. WIDTH of TOWERS: There is no mention of width of towers in the Settlement Agreement. On original SDP the tower width is listed at 260'. Actual width of Tower 1 is 310' If each of the 5 towers is 50' wider than the 260' listed in the SDP, fifty times fives equates to almost an additional tower on site. HEIGHT of TOWERS: See AMENDED COCOHATCHEE BAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "R" DISTRICT TABLE II (in Settlement Agreement). In the Settlement Agreement, it states that the maximum height of towers is 200' of habitable space. Tower 1 exceeds 200 ft. in height because it has 2 levels of garage at its base and a pool and fitness center on the roof. It should be noted that "habitable space" actually begins on the upper level of the garage where the building manager's home is located. Since it contains a bathroom and kitchen, that is habitable space. SDPA PL20160002242 currently under review by County staff sho highest point of Buildings 2-4 will be 224' 11 " with the u er ws the ceiling being 199' 0"just under the 200' maximum. pp most finished Paragraph 10 in the Settlement Agreement states, "Building Five as shown on the Revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B on the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in Building Height, as defined in Paragraph 3.5 entitled "Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the amended PUD, and Footnote 2 thereto. SDPA PL20160002242 currently under review by County staff shows the highest point of Building 5 will be 301 ' 1 �/a" with the uppermost finished ceiling height 276' 2 IA" which would CLEARLY be a violation of the Settlement Agreement. HOWEVER, Brad Schiffer (former Collier Planning Commissioner and current head architect for the state of Florida) explained to me that on this chart I have to focus on the bottom of the chart where they show the elevation of the 3rd story floor (1st habitable level) to be at 100' instead of 0' as it did in the diagram for Buildings 2-4. So, that makes the uppermost finished ceiling of Building 5 to be 176 2 %" -still more than the 175' maximum, but not by much. . DISTANCE BETWEEN TOWERS: PUD Section 3.5 Table II located on page OR 4368 Pages 2415-16 "BH (Building Height) Building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure." "SBH (Sum of Building Height) Combined Height of two adjacent buildings for the purpose of determining setback requirements." The setback formula in the chart is 0.5 SBH *Footnote 3 So if Tower 1 is 200' tall and Tower 2 is 200' tall, the sum is 400' and half of that would be 200'—the setback requirement or distance between buildings. *Footnote 3 below 3.5 Table II states, "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed, or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." When I pointed out to County staff that the Towers appeared to be much closer together than allowed, Christ Scott replied to me, "Setbacks are based on the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD Section 3.5 Table II. Per the approved PUD, the minimum separation between structures is half the building height; however, buildings with common architectural theme that are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks an be administratively reduced. The SDPA under review shows buildings with a separation of at least 700' measured from the towers and 72' measured between parking structures. " When we pointed out to County staff that the above was an error in how to calculate the setback requirement, Christ Scott responded that his answer to me had been a "typo". . . In the transcript of the Planning Commissioners meeting on January 11 , 2008, a lengthy discussion of this issue of inadequate setbacks begins on page 46 and continues through page 66. On pages 65-66 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to not allow language in the Settlement Agreement stating that the setbacks between buildings would be a minimum of 100' and County attorney, Jeff Klatzkow, stated, "The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time." County staff is saying that they are allowed to make an "administrative reduction" to the distance between buildings because of *Footnote 3 quoted above. I have written to County staff that I could understand an "administrative reduction" of 6" or 6' or even 16'; however, sliding the buildings to within a hundred feet in the back and 72' in the front when the required distance between buildings is supposed to be 200' is unacceptable. We do not think it is in the public's interest to allow 5 buildings which are 310' wide to be only 100' apart at one point and 72' apart at another point. This will equate to a tall wall of concrete obstructing our view in perpetuity. We want to bring this to the attention of Collier County Commissioners NOW, before County staff gives Towers 2-5 approval to be built as proposed in SDPA PL20160002242. I question if County staff has been properly reviewing the SDP and the Settlement Agreement before they approve deviations requested by developer. . ' ;' 11.;1 14' , *It ' .''' ' it' :.-.,...zi.:ity,-.1.!,..;:ti..,,,f1 . :,.. - it.::::,,,,i_.,t-7,--..--:,....,:,k„,,,,_..v. ,,,,, . i . , 1. !. ; ' ',47- - ...i i -?'-..-.=':',:' ';',7',::.:i--.,.''',4,-- d''''*.'' ' I'.;At--''.. -':.;* - ''''' . ''' v) -,, , ....r t,..'''''1--Q u cc ltd i= 'tit 1R\ i\ i o q ,--0 Li=CY "tr ' 's.- ''. VII ''.° .-O' ', ,f,/ 4. t . c..,1 i. '° . ,:',*Y , IPS 11111111, ,, ' _ .:44 , , r -4 N s � � . ...„. .... .... 1. ,t: ,._ * x ' , gl t, ..„..„ _-.:,,.. . -..., 2... . _,,, ., , _ t mac+ r. c 1 "s L.. V i F t ij� .:! / ta .. t#1.. . ,_,,, lh, ,. ' /* oil .- i #: . ;;,-,..._,,,,..-7 of . . f �\ � � ( , , w c ..-. # Q z sLL„ yoro) , c:, .,4 CI) C Z '{ + z = $ fi t 1.: ti 7 p yY' C °v moi. s 1 l ( l yam# X iit ib . , - ,,..-,ii,-.:,"4.-.. � fy .;1. i{ k 6 till' ,tti e y Retn: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 RBC FEE 926.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD RECORDED in the OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COMITY, FL COPIES 97.00 IEBROFFICE 4TH FLOOR 06/10/2008 at 10:46AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK BI? 7240 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this day of , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC ("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle Management Plan, and WHEREAS, the PUD in question is also sometimes;referred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD; and - ,, WHEREAS, Lodge filed a petition for certiorari snit ie Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida to attack-the County's-,decistons concerning the proposed amendment to the PUD's Bald-Eagle Management Plan, that case being styled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier County,Case.No...05-967-CA;and WHEREAS, on or around May 1, 2006, Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act ("Bert Harris Act"), Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4)(c) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. 1 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2346 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and Release, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound, Lodge and the County mutually agree to the following: 1. The County and Lodge agree to adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as"Whereas clauses"by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. The settlement documents will consist of the original PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 (Exhibit 1), the amended PUD (Exhibit 2), the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan for the amended PUD (attached as Exhibit "B" to the amended PUD), a phasing diagram entitled "Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Exhibit".(=Exh bit:-3), and, a Pathway Depiction (Exhibit 4). This Agreement and Release;,expressly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD: Absent an-express-term in this Agreement and Release, the ‘,77 original PUD will control. I( t a s :% fi 3. The settlenne t shall three` site development plans ("SDPs") that Lodge has submitted being approved by the County, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Couys llnt -awe ,as...the development standards set forth in the original PUD and as may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282, AR5283 and AR5284. 4. The County will expedite the review of these three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. The existing environmental impact statement ("EIS") does not need to be amended unless the SDPs are revised to increase wetland impact beyond the impact currently permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five(5%)percent. 5. Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential 2 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: Z34•1 condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable workforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment. 6. Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, Lodge shall contribute the sum of$3 million to the County to fund Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements. No impact fee credits shall be given for payment of this sum. Lodge recognizes that the County may request additional contributions up to the proposed road impact fees due for 590 dRcelhng:units to assist the County in funding the construction of the Vanderbilt Drive Bridgeenhancements.LNo such additional contributions shall be required, however,until the_County--provides evidence that all parties have spent Jo - $5,500,000.00 on the Vanderbilt L r veBndge erd ancemenns Any such sums paid over the initial $3 million shall recetve'road impact fee credits: Nothing in this Agreement and Release, however, is intended ito'-nor shall it restrict m anyway the County's ability under applicable laws, ordinances or rules td require fifty percent(50%) of all transportation impact fees upon approval of the SDPs. These funds shall be refunded to Lodge should Lodge be permanently prevented from commencing construction based upon actions by any governmental entity or any third party. County shall be entitled to retain these funds without any need for reimbursement upon the earlier of(1) Lodge's commencement of construction of the first tower, or (2) the exhaustion of time to file any third party challenge with respect to any matter concerned by this Agreement and the attachments hereto. 7. Lodge and the County agree that the Cocohatchee Bay PUD shall be exempted from the County's PUD sunsetting provisions within the LDC until the Effective J 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth (1/5) of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or golf course use-is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reason, then all of the GC'Barcel including wrthgct .limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those,.portions-allowed.,for the two (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be limited?iri perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the amended PUD Preserve Parcel:----Any revisions to these restrictive covenants will require a supermajority vote of the Board of County Commissioners. 9. To fully satisfy itsobligations_to__construet-sidewalks along adjacent off-site public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway-ten (1O) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006) in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2349 (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in Building Height, as defined in Paragraph 3.5 entitled "Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the amended PUD, and Footnote 2 thereto. 11. The maximum number of dwelling units to be constructed by Lodge shall not exceed 590 units. Of these, a maximum of 590 units may be multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However, two (2) units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as set forth in Section 4.4 in the amended PUD, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 12. What has been referred to as4he R-2 Parcels shall be replaced by a single R parcel as set forth in the revised PUD MasterPlan sattached to the amended PUD. The development standards for the R Parcel-are-as-set forth in Table II of Paragraph 3.5 of the amended PUD (except as maybe expressly modified by the Agreement and Release). 13. If there are additional changes to-the e Bald-Eagle,-Management Plan required by federal or state agencies, no further County PUD amendment process shall be required. The County acknowledges that the Amended.Bald-Eagle Management Plan is in compliance with the County regulations. Lodge shall be exempt from any County regulations that may be adopted in the future applicable to the Bald Eagle and the County shall defer to the state and federal regulatory permitting process relating to the Bald Eagle Management Plan and issues related thereto. Lodge, however, shall be required to notify the County of any such changes required by state or federal agencies, which will then require an administrative change by the County to any of the previously approved SDPs under review or that have been approved by the County. Any change to the construction sequencing shall be considered an insubstantial change to the SDP. 14. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit 2. 5 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2350 15. Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees, insurers, sureties, agents, attorneys, and representatives of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord. No. 2000-88, the related Bald Eagle Management Plan or any amendment or proposed amendment to the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 or the Bald Eagle Management Plan through the date this Agreement and Release are approved and authorized by the Board for the Chairman's signature including without limitation all Bert Hams Act claims and the claim asserted in Case No. 05-967-CA - This release shall be immediately effective upon the County's approval of the 3 SDPs in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement and Release. 16. In the event of,a third party challenge to-this Agreement and Release, the County and Lodge agree to work cooperatively to defend this Agreement and Release. In this regard, the County and Lodge shall each seek to become parties to any such challenge proceeding if one or the other of them is not named as a party in the first instance. The County and Lodge shall each bear their own costs and attorney's fees in any such proceeding. 17. If any third party challenge to this Agreement and Release should ever be successful, after exhaustion of all appeals or other requests for review or reconsideration or federal permit conditions prevent Lodge from being able to develop the project consistent with the amended PUD Master Plan then the County agrees to return all money provided by Lodge under this Agreement and Release upon sixty(60)days written notice from Lodge and to allow Lodge to retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. In addition, if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain 6 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2351 required federal permits for the SDPs as referenced in this document and is therefore unable to build this project (exclusive of any federal permits or approvals for docks), Lodge likewise will be entitled to a refund of all money provided under this Agreement and Release within sixty (60) days of written notice from Lodge and Lodge shall retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. 18. Nothing in this Agreement and Release or the settlement documents shall be construed or interpreted to confer any right to docks or any particular number of docks. 19. The Agreement and Release shall be binding upon Lodge's and the County's predecessors, successors, assigns, officers,;present-and former employees, owners, present and former elected or appointed officials, insurers, principals,and representatives, who shall work together in good faith to accomplish the intent of this Agreement and Release. 20. This Agreement and Release shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. 21. This Agreement-and Release may be:amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement_and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release. This Agreement"and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. 22. The County and Lodge acknowledge that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision that my exist in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party either based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous language or that the language in question was intended to favor one party or the other. 7 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2352 23. The Effective Date of this Agreement and Release shall be the date upon which the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, executes this document. 24. The County and Lodge acknowledge and assume the risk that additional, different or contrary facts to the facts which they believe exist may now exist or may be discovered after this Agreement and Release has been entered into, and they agree that any such additional, different or contrary facts shall in no way limit, waive, affect or alter this Agreement and Release. The County affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the,prq}ec as-authorized by the PUD and this Agreement and Release or the enforceability of ii Agreement and Release. Lodge affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that, would prohibit the.construction of the project as '" authorized by the PUD and 'this Agreerhent t and�elease or the enforceability of this t, Agreement and Release. ; 25. In the event of a .breach of this Agreement and,Release, either party to this Agreement and Release may enforce its terms in-the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In this respect, theCounty and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REMAINING SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 8 2/28/08 revision - 011: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST:;;; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT EBROCK, CLERK COLLIER CO TY, F ORIDA c. 4 / ` • By: rot /1/ ' �L BY: _ 11 villillibbak A : nu. Mai. , P-puty lerk TOM HENNING, CHAIRM signature on r4. . - WIT I S ES; / 1 / . , i Signed Name 491 Cdtivto›.6 7- 4e0e.gri:ick Print-• Name 4_,A,01. 6.elie ,..„..„.,. . . 1 / �./ Si��1• Name = LODGE-; BOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC 4, 7,0zig,..:>1,- BY. _ 4,0 '1,1, JJLG21Q/lg B ' ITS: p(AANi /7-'Tr Printed Name i_a•' '-'-';'''''--7.','-''",.,6,777 ;,. Ap• oved as to form it { j ` i i i ' '' and e! • II __ • _., ;` a 3`- t l 1 ; ; _�: y', ,.s r .., ` _,ate ,�: iniarz.. • Je ' A. K1 AT ow , � '...�F , ' i Co . y Atto 1 j-y _ �A+--,Z. V k / 9 2/28/08 revision Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Updates On June 17, 201 5, Lodge Abbott extended his 2004 golf course permit and clear cut two large sections of land in the fall. I called Matt McLean's office in September and November and asked that the site be inspected for any violations of the permit. Both times his office responded that all clearing was allowed by the permit. On April 16, 2016 I sent an email to County Commissioners, county attorney, county manager, county planning commissioners, Daryl Hughes and Matt McClean informing them that the golf course permit that the developer extended was a sham. There is no mention of a golf course in the amenities section of the Kalea Bay website and a Kalea Bay sales agent told me three times that they had no plans to build a golf course. In 2016 nearly the whole interior of the Golf Course parcel was cleared under the guise of building a Golf Course. It defies logic that the developer is truly building a golf course. . What savvy developer would build a new golf course in Collier County when many golf courses are struggling to make a profit? What developer wanting to sell $1 .5 million condos would not feature photos and information about the golf course he's building right across the road in the amenities section of his website. What developer building a golf course would instruct his sales agents to tell potential buyers that he isn't building a golf course? What developer building condo towers AND a golf course across the road would not be selling golf course memberships? The most recent golf course plans submitted to the County show 18 holes of golf crammed on the GC parcel. The plan does NOT show an entrance, clubhouse, parking lot, golf cart barn, driving range or practice green. In fact, the plan shows a driving range and practice green on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive where a maintenance building, guest suites and tennis courts are already built. We can't put back the centuries old cypress trees that have been cut down or restore the wetlands, but we can insist that the use of the land be limited to golf course or leave it alone to grow back. Several Collier County golf courses not able to make a profit requested that they be allowed to change their zoning to residential. County Commissioners put a moratorium on those requests on April 12, 2016. County staff were directed to draft an amendment to facilitate golf course conversion to other uses. Right now the language of that amendment is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. We theorize the developer is going ahead and clearing the land getting it ready for residential development so that when the new LDC amendment is in place, he will use it to change zoning from golf course to residential. We ask that the Golf Course Conversion Amendment apply only to golf courses that were fully constructed and in business prior to April 12, 2016. We also ask County Commissioners and staff to enforce terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement. Please refer to "Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement Analysis" to view specific concerns. The intent of the Settlement Agreement can be clarified by reading the transcript of the December 12, 2006 meeting among County Commissioners, Rich Yovanovich, concerned citizens and the developer. Please read pages 46--66 of the January 11 , 2008 Planning Commissioners meeting to clarify the issues brought to the county in the letter from our attorney, Ralf Brookes. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 fit « . « • ` • - • ` • • rr rr ! •• • \ rr• r .- at « wb• t• • , r r.-T-• i • • « • r . 4. e •• i 4* 4..,..!,•.• '•.•.• .1001) . . •••- -.1... ,• .. .•...•,..s , . �y -i, nn . ..\.4.4 Ili e i i r *,..;:f. . ri.,1 i 19, R ls' i b .40 L. _ _____ _ _.......i.........-01, _ _ 111616--—mi.- r.s YLT DI�VF (S.R. S-88SA)- v __ _-_ 0 --=�i___-----____ _0 �r-wArr .— --mss. _-.r--ser-�S-- sr-i, - —�:= .. iiii C1-- sr. _, . .4::., , _ _ 0 (ii : .._A4 ,:::: ,_____ ...._•••___. •• 1, ,,. .N..... _ • sii.,1,14. . ...-1"q-- ' ,4:1 1(,. '°\-1 ‘1 , qMTMW:::: le10-''''... :‘, I i • • . 1 ' (0 1, \ 0 z;;;A‘: 0 zn:;;;;;;;; .\ .*.•.*.*.*.•.*„ '•,...,,„,....4 , * \,,t Pi II 1 , , ...... . ,. . . i;.!a• I ' i 414 S.,:ii:i. Or:•.•.• .r •tilb, r r • \ 7 1 tar i * 1 \ I \ : ; • 1r : lA I , '. ‘..'!'' 'FZ1111041r4--44"kt, .g... \ _ -- 4 « 4 t • 1 NI n 2ianZ Rg �^'' ni_ H II n. o 3la � � Al ;mO!131 xl fip z ; y ii++ 0 , f) AO ... 1 i #} '*•41-14 r' I U\'''k . A . i g a , 1: , , 4. . . , .11 , ._ , _ .. . A. ---___ .k ..t"...,. r.. ° ' i ' , t i --4 I ",,,c crt") (k .. I ti • , , , ,...., , .. 2. I ) -'' II 1 S4 x. i {C„. gr _ , b� kyri ,, ( 'N �. ti �� ! 3 '^: i - lit , A •. .,.c. o` , l s s 4a •! r r .MY w`k l.”s.a. -fr. .��,r:..+n..++ate"Y�.w.11......- -.+`'}�� Y✓ Y _ ]w1 11111 Iici 'iy - 1!R ii 111 III' 'al t I A fi li ki iJi ..* . *.., , s3111J il 3. Al's Iii . ir %A4 a i s i ii sil 1 11 'it . it li !.. i' 1,1 * f iltlil ii r0P ', it .l # ct ti 1.4. li t , s 11, ,1' tf /'4 1 411'IA 1111: I ii iI!IiIi i Iii .• ,.� - a . i 4•# 4R:•t • • pyx„ Y . •#e ,, xtR""-0 't •i,"e.`s 3 '".rep,, • i t p 4 t !!•! �444 `++. \\:''4y y Ck . 4 • •4 t' y *'tom & s 'Q f '��h '! . • • • f .8 • t...4 r,0.41t t `ttn t Rct.e , 4 t 4 • 3 x4 kA. #' . 4,* atI I 4 4 �4 t . 1 e , itt \`v • r 44 • -'fig .^- �-- "- _ I Y r' 4 t #r# y mak• :" .. �, 1 ow..�.— .a c ,v *A***''.... :` ....► 'ate_ ......x....r e..*�..---- p E t E _ `' •r* _..M*. Yw #4W a1,.444•w 4't .-.+• I. t 1- L."*L44,1 L'''''' —417.'1 w ,, .. qy...t.. - 't .•, xrwK .- 3, y,� t ; y i! j0004!'-,j'.4.**,-:11,r"."!- 4:1'4 * T-',-','",*...!*''''' :','*''''''''''''--' '' 7 c."-,':, p 4 t t. " 4 &*7. d" _f . ''''') ""**** ' 41.-i ' i **(..... *' 11 + s1, P,. #•a# 4 • s • s `x. x a 1 ii - 2 *� r 4V • ••••# # • a *• rt*4 •# • • • 4 r #4 4 } ; het *a * #t� # 4 4 $ '* • *4 t 4 Y 4.4 C p ,, i 4 t•, s • •44 y " .• , T 4 IY • 4' s • • 4 ` ice• n .. ,...- • {#a *4#1 #• Rte .•> #,#° k !. 3 444 • • # # * ! 4 *, ♦ �1 t• • # 2,4 • wa 4 4 • • •a • ••• • _ • • • • 4 • COCOHATCHEE BAY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ANALYSIS Paragraph 2 states ". . .This Agreement and Release expressly states the acceptable deviation in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control. So how did the width of the Towers get changed from 260' to 310'? Paragraph 4 states that the County will expedite the review of three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. Those SDP's gave detailed descriptions of the buildings at Kalea Bay so that County staff, Commissioners and neighbors who are stakeholders in the final result could envision what the development would look like. Does that mean it is okay to slide Tower 1 one-third closer to Aqua—from 166' to 106'? Does that mean it's okay to build the towers 310' wide instead of 260' wide? Does that mean it is okay to put a manager's home on the upper garage level and then not identify that as a habitable floor? Does that mean it's okay to put just 100' between the towers when the intention of Footnote 3 was absurdly interpreted by one County staff person? Read pp 46-66 of transcript of January 11 , 2008 Planning Commissioners' meeting. Paragraph 8 states that as each condo building receives its certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth of the GC Parcel. We want the County to make sure that happens. It also says that if the Golf Course is abandoned for any reason, the GC parcel will be green open space in perpetuity. Is it okay that the developer extended a 2004 Golf Course permit and cleared nearly the entire parcel under the guise of building a Golf Course when that defies logic? What savvy developer would build a new golf course in Collier County when many golf courses are struggling to make a profit? What developer wanting to sell $1 .5 million condos would not include information about the golf course he's building right across the road in the amenities section of his website where the word "golf" is not mentioned? What developer building a golf course would instruct his sales agents to tell potential buyers that he isn't building a golf course? What developer building condo towers AND a golf course across the road would not be selling golf course memberships? The most recent golf course plans submitted to the County show 18 holes of golf crammed on the GC parcel. The plan does NOT show an entrance, clubhouse, parking lot, golf cart barn, driving range or practice green. In fact, the plan shows a driving range and practice green on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive where a maintenance building, guest suites and tennis courts are already built. Paragraph 9 states that Lodge is supposed to construct a 10' pathway on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive when he receives the Tower 1 certificate of occupancy. We want the County to make sure that happens. Paragraph 11 states the maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 590. At a meeting with Commissioners on December 12, 2006 the developer's attorney, Rich Yovanovich was trying to get Commissioners to approve the Settlement Agreement and assured them that the applicant would not be back at a later date asking to put residences on the Golf Course. Lodge has tried twice to get housing project approved by the County. Paragraph 15 states that Lodge released, waived and forever discharged the County and its present, former and future officials and employees from any legal action related directly or indirectly to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. However, in the spring of 2015 he threatened to sue the County in an 8 page letter sent to the County attorney. Then in a $4,000 full-page open letter in the Naples Daily News, he declared that he had decided to NOT sue the County because he wanted to be a good neighbor. Paragraph 19 states that the Settlement Agreement shall be binding on Lodge's and the County's present, former and future employees who shall work together in good faith to accomplish the intent of the Settlement Agreement. The true intent of the terms of the Settlement Agreement can be learned by reading the transcripts of meetings among Planning Commissioners and Rich Yovanovich and the County Commissioners and Rich Yovanovich in 2006 and 2007. Paragraph 21 states that the Settlement Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to it and executed with the "same formalities" of the Settlement Agreement. So, was it right when the Hearing Examiner was allowed to absolve Lodge from Item 5 on the Settlement Agreement which stated that Lodge would contribute $3 million to affordable housing? Paragraph 24 states that the County and Lodge assume the risk that additional, different or contrary facts which they believed at that time, might be discovered after the Settlement Agreement has been signed. They agreed that additional facts shall in no way affect or alter the agreement. Since the time the Settlement Agreement was signed the popularity and profitability of golf has declined. That fact in no way should alter the terms of Item #8 which states that if the golf course is ever abandoned for any reason, the land adjacent to us will remain green open space in perpetuity. We feel that Lodge has cleared the GC parcel in preparation for building residences there. Currently the Planning Commission is reviewing language in a Golf Course Conversion amendment. On April 12,2016, the Board of County Commissioners put a moratorium on golf courses requesting to convert to residential zoning until this issue could be studied. It is anticipated that the Golf Course Conversion document will be ready for the Commissioners to review in April of 2017. Nowhere in that conversion document does it state that the amendment will apply only to golf courses that were fully constructed and in business prior to April 12, 2016. We fear that the developer will use the Golf Course Conversion amendment to facilitate the rezoning of the GC parcel to residential. Paragraph 25 states that "In the event of a breach of the Settlement Agreement, either party may enforce its terms in the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In this respect the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary." The Bert Harris Statute 70 requires that both parties record the Settlement Agreement with the Court so the Court can preserve the public interest; however, Case No. 05-967-CA is still pending . . . Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Cod bier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239) 252-6358 Appeal of an Administrative Type III Decision LDC section 10.04.04 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED The following applications are subject to an administrative Type III review: variances, administrative appeals, certificates of appropriateness, conditional uses, nonconforming use amendments, vested rights, flood variances, and parking agreements. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Owner: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: Name of Agent: Firm: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: REQUEST DETAIL Appeal of Application Number: AR/PL- (Please reference the application number that is being appealed) Attach a narrative describing the request, the legal basis for the appeal, and the relief sought. Include any pertinent information, exhibits, and other backup information in support of the appeal. 12/26/2013 Page 1 of 2 Coe r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239) 252-6358 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The following items are to be submitted with the completed application packet: ❑ Completed application (download current form from County website) ❑ Completed narrative ❑ Electronic copy of all documents, please advise that the Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. FEE REQUIREMENTS: ❑ Appeal of Vested Rights Determination: $100.00 ❑ Appeal of an Administrative Decision:$1,000.00 ❑ Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner:$925.00 All checks payable to:Board of County Commissioners The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 12/26/2013 Page 2 of 2 Building Separation LDC Separation Distance Based on Height. BH m - _ — I Minimum Distance Between Buildings LDC Table 2. Building Dimensions Standards BH=Building Height ( BH + BH ) * 0.5 = BH -111aelmootf6rp,-----rjnt" t'--I-3:— ,, ,,,... .' beight(4100 fat 62 ,...._.r.....-=--• Dastmene SIMMOSIN Ptindps1 Struciares, 05 SEX •3 ',, 0.5 OH noel= than 15 feet i i , ,_ VisorAn*Min. Of \it( ',' 1100010/ 1200 SP i I. N . . , tk 7 — ''''' 1 i I, ( i-- i t I 'I ''''''' '' •T. i d14::: aft (beadles WO*SWIM%*On eltall be the vatical tkortaturb ficio!ilifirei isabbable nabbed neer anotioa to die uppermost Soleil ouOiot davvilon of iber MS amok or Biddies IWO)c Cesebbebineifilt of two otgacear Willey*Am fatopm of+Istessision onto*toptimonots. AS digester&me is tem West otketwise soled --,,..._. /-/1-_- ( 1 V....{1-._....."- --- •,_ •I Ems look dub be remand as lkil loser A. If the pored is served by a public riglu-ckway,setback is nesesused nein the edjuoure OW-of-way nat. S. if*.pee*Is used by a pewees reed.setback is rocasured nom the heck istruth(if airhol)or edged pavement(it MI curbed). *2 flaildiog brisk for tha tomb proparry liee sdjacen1 so Arbor Trace in the"Rt"tract shell be IS arrifig for a mosiontaia*Oa of 150 feet, *3 Mow balictiop with i comma oictikratund dime are seek&skewed or other trees one apreabef,and welb sae met wend to ereelbec the setbedrs cm be laboiatetadeely rulaced. Distance Between Principal Structures Distance Between Principal Structures Reduced 1111110111111 Reduced Jr Distance Between Principal Structures Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced. "It has been staff's interpretation for decades that the reduction in building separation can be reduced from 200 feet and that reduction is not limited." Executive Summary page 4 of 8 "During the CCPC hearings, when asked how much of a reduction could be administratively approved with the existing language of footnote 3, planning staff replied, "...the basic question is, is the reduction in setbacks or separation of structures limited by the PUD document? And the answer is no, the separation is unlimited. I can't see any grounds in there for intent to reduce it a certain amount, or it would have been specified...There simply is nothing that limits the amount of reduction." (Page 55 of CCPC January 11, 2008 Public Hearing, Attachment "E"). " Executive Summary page 4 of 8 The table below identifies the present and historical application of the building setback reduction. Summary of Common Architectural Theme(CAT)Building Separation Setback Reductions Development Setback Required Setback Approved(utilizing Percent Reduction CAT) Water Park Place @ Pelican (1/2 Bldg Height) 100 feet 25 feet 75% Bay Sand Pointe @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Isle Verde @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Villa Cantana @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Vizcaya @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Bouganillas Condo @ Lago Front:35 feet Side:25'Rear:35 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 42%40%57%60% Verde feet Bldg Sep:25' Cordoba @ Lely Resort Front:20 feet Side: 10 feet Bldg 6.4 feet 3.1 feet 5.3 feet 68%69%47% Sep: 10 feet Kalea Bay @ Cocohatchee (1/2 the sum of Bldg 100 feet 50% Bay PUD Heights) 200 feet Executive Summary page 6 of 8 Correction 7; Location bilis. sttj ca Forward Date Status Changed :216/2C1E Commerce; we c ,r vide :he location arc duel QCrI= cry or boosed build inu (inclucrigis nJ bund inc that a re to n Djli ru 2 shod£ E.,teaved mcg, so a.s t no aooearto beperellel euiinQ L / it is to remain gi a with Building % ther t mu5tvied. setbacka establisheo in the b. - lite U! . ; ii I , .ow Ill " II .: yr Ng ' Nu .LI Nor No MI 'fir;. BM .I. I! Kms' , . .w II .. • �.-. U Nor MI . .. U .. 1111.. . . n' ■ 4 Building Width Kalea Bay Comparison between the Settlement SDP and 2nd Phase SDP Building Widths and Building Separations Settlement SDP 2nd Phase SDP variance Building 1 width 260 310 50 separation 153 109 -44 Building 2 width 260 310 50 separation 126 165 39 Building 3 width 260 310 50 separation 127 100 -27 Building 4 width 260 310 50 separation 341 106 -235 Building 5 width 260 310 50 1,300 747 1,550 480 250 -267 63.5% 36.5% 76.4% 23.6% 19.2% -35.7% 2,047 2,030 flyy� f dt tt"ff ,?W'.S • • � ,'•., i . W 'iIi f aimielrommf • : t IP.. N `J• AS - 1 y il , ' , �� 1 j E. 1 a ) y t :liti:PMEISa.*•'• ., .1**:::::. '4 404 ..''''''''' , \-1 r,',k,...-:: *:: --, ... i 1, 0 1 1,i, •*:• ..,„,e0--t , ,;,•.•.•,•-• ••.„... ' ., %.1,14,, ,.i../lot ,,,,,,, -o, f _Jik,Atfit • , ! ,:1 i ,\ ,t. ..,..c1,-, 0.,, ,i, 77 ,i. , , ,u,,,, ..,... r4-, : .-i- • • :4 .72;. % ilk \ , '----7,t, 1 '.:15-',.---. -L'::'-1-':-'.•." .:..........,4"•4•' ...'Y':' '°-'16\ m N Aire, ,/,'V \ 2".0'4::'' iii!. 1 `•• iii► ' 0.r • ��,. 1 1 ! • , rte. " t�`lcI. y i--•;-:. f,,•:-,/,.•:.-7•.;\-0...•:.;r1['.'•:•::•"":•Y•:":"I•:.I,1F.i.L,e;4•, iYi.F-ice trZ , i < • f l• tit • • • 41 9rw's� 1 �-�i Yt�, i f z' -) 1-'\ �C\ raw ® 5� p • V:"'.., '� ..GAS ® � ^} - -46 Settlement .v; i r r rr r.i .,.... ��i', l �.�� __� asp ` --2,..., . ... 1__�i 1-, A 1 yy�T 7t i "i.,�' ` '' 11), Z',�-e fid{' �o w ,4 1. �, , �, n . , , a ,",, � -�-- LP ( r<w a. ' C i 1 I. I � ' . . vik' 4. , } a. it ,li. 1 TY > f R"` - if �. Cyt- . . a.--- t .,,.., 1 ?; fir . '. a ! i S . .� 1 1; III Current Building Height I r I Maximum Building Height Maximum Building Height = 20 stories for a maximum height of 200 feet BH: (Building Height): Building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure. Only used for Front Yard,Side Yard and Rear Yard. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION ZONING&LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 2004-05 DATE:November 10,2004 LDC SECTION:1.09.02(Definitions:Building,zoned height of) SUBJECT:Exemptions from Building Height Limitations LNITIATED BY:Zoning Department Staff BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATIONS: The following language is contained within the definition of zoned building height referred to above:"Rooftop recreational space and accessory facilities are also exempted from the limitations established for measuring the height of buildings," The Code does not further define"recreational space and accessory facilities," and a request for clarification of this language,with regard to the intent of the Code,has been received. DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): It is my determination that the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased building height,and refers to unenclosed,unroofed,and unairconditioned space for recreational use. This would include such uses as tennis courts,sun decks,running tracks,gym and exercise equipment,and swimming pools or spas which are not raised above rooftop level. The reference to accessory facilities would consist of those exceptions to height limitation identified in LDC Section 4.02.01-D.1 as infrastructure in support of the building,including structures which do not consist of air-conditioned, habitable space, such as those used to house equipment (pumps, condensers,generators,elevators,etc.). AUTHOR: Ross Gochenaur (for Susan Murray, '.ICP, Director, Department of Zoning & Land Development Review) cc:Project planners Michael R.Fernandez,AIC?,President,PDI Florida Building Code Definitions HABITABLE SPACE. A space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, screen enclosures, sunroom Categories I, II and III as defined in the AAMA/NPEA/NSA 2100, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces OCCUPIABLE SPACE. A room or enclosed space designed for human occupancy in which individuals congregate for amusement, educational or similar purposes or in which occupants are engaged at labor, and which is equipped with means of egress and light and ventilation facilities meeting the requirements of this code. Settlement Agreement #19 present and former elected or appointed officials, ... ... shall work together in good faith to accomplish the intent of this Agreement and Release." END Appellants Filing Administrative Appeal Type Ill Decision LDC Section 10.04.04 1. Diane Rupnow; 14555 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 2. Judith S. Palay; 14648 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 3. Frank Halas; 2531 Golfside Drive; Naples, FL 34110 4. Diane Halas; 2531 Golfside Drive; Naples, FL 34110 5. Diane D. Allen; 14806 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 6. Bruce Q. Allen 14806 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 7. William J. Bryzgalski; 14746 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 8. Phoebe B. Bryzgalski; 14746 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 9. Margaret T. Manna; 15498 Cedarwood Lane#202; Naples, FL 34110 10. Ferdinand J. Manna; 15498 Cedarwood Lane#202; Naples, FL 34110 11. Charlene Fisher; 14660 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 12. John Schaffer; 14660 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 13. Patrick Carey; 14611 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 14. Harold Linnerud; 17 Bluegill Avenue; Naples, FL 34108 15. August Larson; 425 Cove Tower Dr. # 1002; Naples, FL 34010 16. Hilda Glazer; 857 Carrick Bend Circle#203; Naples, FL 34110 17. Emily Kearns; 14722 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 18. Chris Kearns; 14722 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 19. Asimina Ginis; 14616 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 20. Barbara Schiffer; 15495 Cedarwood Lane, Apt. 105; Naples, FL 34110 21. Laurence A. Defuge; 15495 Cedarwood Lane, Apt 305; Naples, FL 34110 22. Ruth A. Defuge; 15495 Cedarwood Lane, Apt. 305; Naples, FL 34110 23. Charlene Raymond; 14652 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 24. Stephen Raymond; 14652 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 25. John C. Fox; 15161 Cedarwood Lane#1603; Naples, FL 34110 26. Gretchen K. Fox; 15161 Cedarwood Lane#1603; Naples, FL 34110 27. Arnold Hulzebosch; 14785 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 28. Anita Hulzebosch; 14785 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 29. Aric Rudden; 14542 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 30. Susan Leach Snyder; 17 Bluebill Ave. Apt. 803; Naples, FL 34108 31. James Floyd Snyder; 17 Bluebill Ave. Apt. 803; Naples, FL 34108 32. Patricia A. Clemente; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 205; Naples, FL 34110 33. Paul Clemente Jr.; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 205; Naples, FL 34110 34. Cheryl A. Wiecek; 14680 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 35. Marilyn Ann Stendahl; 14813 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 36. Carl Peter John Stendahl II; 14813 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 37. Mary Anne Lostaunau; 14742 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 38. Katherine Updegrove; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 101; Naples, FL 34110 39. William Noyes; 14576 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 40. Geraldine Noyes; 14576 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 41. Dennis Scharf; 14644 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 42. Donna Scharf; 14644 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 43. Edward Schiffer; 15495 Cedarwood LN APT 105; Naples, FL 34110 44. Nancy Rene Barton; 14581 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 45. Bill Larson; 425 Cove Tower Dr. # 1002; Naples, FL 34110 46. Nancy Straus; 14592 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 47. Jerry Straus; 14592 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 48. Brenda Sperry; 14595 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 49. Stephanie Fleetman; 14636 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 50. John Robert Tozer; 14581 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 51. Jim Wydick; 14591 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 52. Sandy Green; 14591 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 53. Louis R. DePrisco; 9-501 Arbor Lake Drive; Naples, FL 34110 54. Kathleen Gallagher; 849 Carrick Bend Circle#201; Naples, FL 34110 55. Tom Duncan; 14620 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 56. Anna Duncan; 14620 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 57. Arthur S. Baldadian; 425 Dockside Drive, Unit 901; Naples, FL 34110 58. Stephen Nichols; 14734 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 59. Mary Nichols; 14734 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 60. Kimberly Campbell; 14801 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 61. Walter Waselovich; 14801 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 62.Jerry Mansbach; 14615 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 63. Shirley Halpern; 14615 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 64. Gilbert Banker; 14624 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 65. Dr. Karen Wasko; 14538 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 66. Laraine Deutsch; 15525 Cedarwood Lane#102; Naples, FL 34110 67. Richard T. Peebles; 14551 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 68. Douglas R. Bloom; 14551 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 69. Elizabeth T. Cressy; 14664 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 70. David A. Cressy; 14664 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 71. John H. Rupnow; 14555 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 72. Steven Picheny; 8231 Bay Colony Drive, Apt 404; Naples, FL 34108 73. Joe Wood; 669 Mainsail PI.; Naples, FL 34110 74. Judith K. Cooper; 14534 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 75. Gail K. Frazee; 858 Carrick Bend Circle# 101; Naples, FL 34110 76. James D. Shaw; 841 Carrick Bend Circle Unit 201; Naples, FL 34110 77. Katherine P. Shaw; 841 Carrick Bend Circle Unit 201; Naples, FL 34110 78. Nanlee K. Hall; 866 Carrick Bend Circle# 103; Naples, FL 34110 79. Diane M. Mascianica; 14516 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 80. Francis S. Mascianica, Jr.; 14516 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 81. Robert LaForgia 14676 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 82. Alan Massey; 5615 Sherborn Drive; Naples, FL 34110 83. Patricia Massey; 5615 Sherborn Drive; Naples, FL 34110 84. Ellen Wright; 14688 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 85. Josephine Dingier; 1001 Arbor Lake Drive# 106; Naples, FL 86. Richard Dingier; 1001 Arbor Lake Drive# 106; Naples, FL 34110 87.Joni Gonnelly; 15495 Cedarwood Lane; Naples, FL 34110 88. Joe Gonnelly; 15495 Cedarwood Lane; Naples, FL 34110 89. Margaret K. Ross; 14520 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 90. Patsy A. Abbett; 14512 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 91. Dinah Rosenthal; 14566 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 92. Doug Fee: 754 Pan Am Avenue; Naples, FL 34110 93.Thomas A. Lynch; 14710 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 May 31, 2017 !,...,41 till:gill vi.„01.1,.4,3-E .3,.!ii.IR 111404. th/11011 Iii!I ir,i1,14:9,1111,1:1 .:: 1131 I:31 11:1,5111,1i11.111411ii ii! , -' ;:lii,t',74,-;,1,,,144 i/i 4 ;.4111;1;• 0;iii.i40; ',' ;,;[:i'r 111i44;4/',.,;!§1 0 tii415V3i0i1111 i 4,ii 10 5;q:/i36 .;/.44;111, ;,./ii,zi,MIEH/ft.%.14^11 r./.' 1/.'4 i'-; ii/';'5";/Purk;r1/ '' •z, pu, !w-,1111 itile,jeipp.044,44:, 1/.; :!,:41114114Paigki. 1:11/;,..• e,nt;TIPI 0/.Vp *Ari1/I/11i,,1.,:i ;1;1;P: i M I ap/i.,i010.49iri•/ :i: , '/!,:!:;s10,41:1-i'iiltiz,1 -.=-'A 40PL7-%.0i/i/v,: 45.1 i:',.%!:?.,,6', 10.,/i,e,!•;;O:it.gt/ /i-1.:11,01H!,..4,44":i i '; !!.., A 4,ZqpiX,iii*;', IN.',- 'iX • Iali'tti!triiiV4-1;i ' ''.iPWiiigi.i'Oi!'''':'''!, ti'41;4•W'A q'OV;'fiii!--;i4iillitizA!!!?Iii, ;.1 110 '-!:', tP:oii"OriPpTi i! tikrqi„ipi,l, 1 ! !1.101!!!kitil;9 1 1 OtApP,' Ry6!,, lqilii1110:4'il!if6i ',' ;, 1 !: ..011070,,,;;;;:41i s : iiej:10!0:1!!61,1 ,, ::., 6 4,,Vdi6i,i,. Itit,0 IAINA;.1p0 iiiilAiP„ ,!:gi', 1 0 % TftiEll'i4:!.46;!! „ li!iitgiopfLi06:;:i Vo;ti;:':!!it!',0:il Iti ', t!!Atigt:!! .44!!!i 4ii!!;'! Ji'i!ji , -iosi,cel-ik6w,t i, 1 i!s:ye...„-,1.-,op;Al! 4;1 i, 16116p1,,,,,,„4. !,ci's;,!,.tp., p,?!.”,14,.,wfoir.91,z.v: ,i-;.,. 'fi ,i,', ,,p-,;;;-?,,i2,r.,ililiiH, 40,ii 3„:4,..,0q6q 1 4 ,-,.41,0.0p!•4 t3-,, ,!m: 1 i Ittpiog, ,T.,4-1';',h, ,. ;,i'' ',;,i,p ,, :!•`,1,.; I t 1.\' 1. ylq4i1,1Ir,,li,..1:, . , ,.0 04 k ,4• - •,,,I, 1;',.= . i 01 101M cit• '''''4'.'- .° ', t, ' q :t, iiiiii III ;,0111 . q .7H.Qni's,• Mq'n.e:':-.. S.,,4 i,F..,-; 11. , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (Th Jlta " ,Wa ' iS f T(Irf 1 $'1-'i I I' i 1 I I 6 6 8,•••4 -',,- ,,,i,,-0 --?`41.;,,, ,,,., , 4 -0, IIII IIIIIII CI) 140/111 -',P• F A IIl'ill , I1 IIIIH H., c ! rrl li 1 , z I 674 i ;;;; ':i g ,:.• 'Z '!,- ' ''."" %.,,i ,'",-;,, Ei ,.•!k`.1. 0 1.'t r; , ,., . :`,..".i. i%I., ' • '' 111 i,h 4/ i 0 / 1 6C1 tia 01 1* w Fp m ItII --I Ir... t-'1 'ftNic o—z 4Z) u-) co IU Ic... - W tO CU ......; Itbi 6`.F,' 1 '''' „ ' tr -- 1r ' / m 0 col -r-1--, r-- ro kizi lab IT:0 .., 4-41. r-- r- ---, 75-„„ ..t•‘.0 • ,1,,--cl " 0 K ,__, ts(D, pg ..._.' . ..7•••/,-,,,, , AD 1. „, ,,,1 lz..) l'i. . ' ?'"/,c.,wig.• *A,,,,)_,74,4,..k,.p_.. : ., c Fr) m CI -0 0,) ,::, ca 1Tii :c€0 rO, t•-••4''''' 0 • - ''-''', . , ••••• 2 1 ,, %,.,.,J,_„ AIN i i;),„ \ ',- ' '‘ Z T Z 1 C.) t n,,,,• co I `.-.7'",, rift j 11 ••••,.. 1•• 1 ',7•:'' ',....,,,S.N\N , (" •.71 ,f,I ‘ / ! cl" t•N.1 ct [--1 "::[ 1 i, 0 > cr t't) co) :7'5 ''' '''N''-f.•• .'-',--=' ;'''.,_. -•'''''' 1-7, % 'LJg4p"...c .// ) U k // > __.1 .......• t....) >I, rio...., 1)..,' .,,75,7y i,,,,-,;,•'41,;,J.7,•••1 '.. , ,,, ,•. ,/ ti.1 ,._, 44174.1 'r .,4. >: 11.4"10.1 _ , tb ,--(1,/-•-- 1 ) 1-61 v14-4 z 00 :,• ,,• 0, : fl t-••;: -1,,, ,,..; , \,,, , , -• i rn r).:- c I 1 N) I A - ' ,, •' - ' -; ; ri 1-.... , llOW:f• A ' t ')s,c--, 'E' -i,;_E.Ei -1 i,,,d!'if -4- .,3i0 3:':410; 1,, 0,, 1,4 1E1 M <,•z,tti,7 v.; ',-,', '','••t"..t,,,C,:i?, . 4\) lbh 1 -nitwit,i _ 1 F ”IE,,I,, i 1 . _f-,; ,1 Ei'i :',,:.! I?,i [.•,,, 1 ii II - iii, ?:, r" t! E i ! . ! E ! : ! ! t' 0 Cif) 1-11t,1 t 1 ,„ y„:,,,..1; _ , •, !,,I,at''''i!/, .'„1, ,..4,T., E-Tv;,,,,.a :, „,--,;:i ; f' '1-,-,...1.•]" "I''' ''' i i • 4! 41 1 ''‘,"' 4 4 1 .• if:'`• •-•';';:.• 4 .'+ ri 44"414 ',:tkOlp;i:4 -'‘.,.t›. f',', f.' h , - , ! ' 1 1 , 0 rri '*1 [i CO iftireas 1 CO *444.1.111 \••••••••, Illi 114411110 ii 1“.,? 1thli' It; ,,• '. ,; U7, .-Th,..;".W4..t,'flr-1 i ill 'IlWiil .HH ..41 $: 11 :, t -E-4,-4:-- .1„„ft,'777TiVf-t A U•';,1'., kaildh I I'l KilliF 1 ''.' 1 1 '*' '' '' ' ' " "'' 'r,'„ ' • ' • '' " ' i • ' : -t ', 4‘°'11Pit' 1 1 WI t f/ 1 iA:te; ,111 • 11 ', , , : 1 LI qkti'0W44 ,...„ ,.'l r„... ....";„+•'',,,I.,,!,,,,,,l.-1 W ;7: ;,..,1;:,!•>.,:Z() 1 *51 t R *'''' 1 ':•. :.• i ,.'.,' 9 i ,..:. ,..- ,, 74,Z7,-1; l :l ll .Il i iii3i,-;; I1 11 -' - I •, 4 •• vv , t , • • • ' t) ' hp r j4 , " "... ..,...,....„...;.....,. . ,. . . • . , . 0„, .t..\ . ,. . . .. . %. 7 , #:,,,,,w•i -_,,_, \_ „, , - , -,,-( 3a -•--,,•...\,i. / gg 4,1000.0 . � • � o w � (romitiv J\1 �I� G A 4��_ oil 1 i ,s " 4 5' 8'b/� <7�.i 1III_�� I1. +. , i Y x \ti al •• 7 l ��6 ? of fi GOAS,'Ra•�D iry' L ;:.4 LJ�t i ; s�3 Y { "Th I 11 I l�t i 4 �i L I' ,, \\ b a a(N:. ,: I` .a' ,, asp .0 a ( 1 _ p%}" C� �� f f s i , 5 tL1 _, E, , pR 9r. 10,I ? d F a► r ori I t / C s_ _... _ .moi--- -,- ___. ___ .;c_ I S4i, ~2RB&T DRNE C-R. 901 ,- - -__..._,l — WAY) ___ PUBU Iiis"@d II za 1g 1'i0 , I '41,i ` 1//111 l q Ili E ° • ;'3W a '"Old 4d 1 ai tnt1ht 40 i d o ". � 'I21-6;2.12E € 3 ZXP, eP 3, 6d 1 t 9' 1 tl s v a ,a14 d-d 4 N b i ;tier a i C 4l_ad,q i d ' p -1 d 44d z41 i' a € § , �,t11 11 , i .4 - m 1111 4. ds 446 4 6 g O. q, t1'1 ,1 1 ;,4 1114 d I" e 4 z i` ' ,4 a4 c Cd 3 ;; it 4!d,11i c4 4 a, s ,46ddl xd S! ,d4 4.=;1t e, Fy t e a Ts d ;11 ' it is 4A 1 i 4 a j gg6 c 14 t lis1'�Li 1 `^ S r 4 :- 9 � 9 F L�`35 9 i ag ` 4 §Y gg) t 4? _ B 3 t 14 11 j 444;44 q/ g3' /, i {. I t? o� ,, , 4 s l4 4 r 9 4 4 4 A , a I z I' 6, zi °il z�i 11 44{E Q ,,, tie¢ d 1.0 Y°; a it 6r?p iFi yd l l' t At s `a$i 444%.4 d l 4d a°z 1 1 44 £ 1g64 i4 ,4 i 4, i 0 , .¢lid P14°z l4 6 44 s �-0 :?Cal a l ,l 4 =d § A' 4• 4Xld I{,.g 44i d -.14 �6 1 r s d " sa RM , a ---- ' ----.." i (7 ' P 6.4.7k .,,,,:p, , 6, m N g fs� 551. g s• ea z R a� � x :s '11::',..: o y SII It1 Ali r 4 5s £ 6"#-,, br „,,... '6..,7., I ry kk O � 9�:� .� i 3 x2 3 ' Z y 0 $ ? >S; s,rn P! p4 r s O I TA 1#<s Ill `c "t y e,74 n Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC ” ' Omega '- i ry:.. v:uria 5100 Lafayette Street �.sz'•7° .::. •�. ,,,�,r,.a«�.. rr+ut,x<rm+rcx«rns '. _ i Detroit•MI 48207 or..�.r oup Consulting 33 X67.-7Dp0 a .. ..... _. _ _... KALEA BAY-Pheae IWI SOPA to AR-6281 Sections 876,77920,ro.nahp 405,Ronga 25E b,',4' ..:1;;;.,;:11), ;� -..:,,,,,,,47):..,..; �;., .... - Meatal Site Plan Collar County,Fio6do o•. Itu\„ w u re n..e (.ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REQUEST Appellants are requesting that the Collier County Board of Commissioners reverse the: 1. administrative reduction in building separation and 2. administrative increase in building widths and 3. administrative approval of additional dwelling units and 4. administrative increase in overall building height all of which are described in further detail in the narrative below, and were made without a public hearing, and without providing a procedural due process noticed opportunity for adversely affected third parties, including Appellants and the public, to be heard. Appellants further request the Collier County Board of Commissioners mandate compliance with the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release, signed on June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts the following day, which references the 3 SDPs approved before, or concurrent with, recording of the Settlement Agreement and referenced in the Settlement Agreement, paragraph 3 (Exhibit 19) and require that any significant changes to the PUD and the SDPs approved in conjunction with said Settlement Agreement be approved by the BCC and require a supermajority vote of the BCC pursuant to the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release. II. Narrative Describing the Request and Legal Basis for Appeal The Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement, PUD, the Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission, and three SDPs reviewed and approved by staff, were approved by the Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as "BCC") on April 22, 2008. (Exhibit 7).This action was taken as part of the Summary Agenda. The BCC approved all documents as presented without objection from the County Attorney, County Manager, county staff, the petitioner, and the petitioner's agent or citizens. The Settlement Agreement, signed on June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts the following day, is a legally binding document in which paragraph 21 unambiguously relates that any changes must be "executed with the same formalities" specified in this Agreement. (Exhibit 19) Thus, changes must be approved by a supermajority of the BCC. Even apart from the Settlement Agreement, the Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000, contains a Development Standards table (Exhibit 1 p 2375) with the formula for determining "distance between principal structures" (0.5 SBH *fn3) The formula 0.5 SBH means that the distance between buildings should be one-half the sum of the buildings' height (200' + 200' = 400' divided by 2 = 200'). Therefore, the distance between two buildings 200' in height should be at least 200'. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000 does contains a *footnote 3: "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." Footnote 3 should not be applied to allow unreasonable, significant major reductions or increases without first going to the BOCC. Footnote 3 administrative reductions should only be applied reasonably to minor or insignificant reductions unless these changes are brought back to the BOCC and procedural due process is afforded to affected third parties and citizens. Administrative staff reductions should not have been used to drastically and significantly reduce setback distances between buildings to nearly half the required setback, or to increase the width of buildings 50' wider than shown in the PUD. The setback were nearly halved without a public hearing and opportunity for public comment on significant changes to building separation distances without procedural due process notice and a right to be heard in a BOCC public hearing. The county staff does not have the requisite authority to make modifications to the SDPs utilizing administrative. Despite this fact, the following changes to Cocohatchee Bay aka Kalea Bay have already been implemented in phase 1 and have been approved by staff for phases II-VI: -- Building Separations: Building separations are less than code minimums of 1/2 the sum of the building heights, and less than the already reduced and adjusted separations (as per PUD footnote #3, Exhibit 7A) shown on the SDPs attached to the PUD and Settlement Agreement.Those separations are as follows: building 1 to 2, 153 feet; building 2 to 3, 126 feet; building 3 to 4, 127 feet; building 4 to 5, 341 feet. (Exhibit 7A). Building 1 is now nearly completed and is 50 feet wider than shown on the BCC approved SDPs. The apparent intent is to also make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building to the plan. Increasing the width of these buildings would further exacerbate the building separation issue and result in them being just 109 feet, 165 feet, 100 feet and 100 feet apart. Staff interpretation that there is no limit to an administrative reduction building separations because of clauses such as 'footnote #3', is not a credible interpretation, reducing the language to an absurdity. Additionally, staff cannot ignore the fact that the CCPC memo was included on the Summary Agenda and was approved by The Board on April 22, 2008. (Exhibit 7C). To quote from the CCPC review that was accepted and approved by Board action, "However, as a result of language in the PUD, the CCPC recommended reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. As an alternative to the reduction in separation, greater distances could be provided by moving alternating towers closer to Vanderbilt Drive." (Exhibit 7C). Collier staff members unilaterally, and without authority, permitted significant major modifications without noticing a public hearing by the BCC. In the Memorandum (Exhibit 33) attached to Amendment SDPA PL20160002242, in the Amendment Approval Notification, staff cited several examples of alleged historical application of administrative reduction. Only one of the citations was a high-rise and that was for a side set- back which is not a building separation issue. In Brandon Sancho's response to our request for public records (Exhibit 25) showing all instances in Collier County in which staff allowed administrative reduction of the required minimum separation between skewed buildings having a common architectural theme (Exhibit 26), "The footnote in question is related to the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD). The only project that has utilized this specific footnote is Kinsale Condominiums Phases II-VI, SDP-2004-AR-5284." Kinsale is Cocohatchee Bay as indicated later in his response. Therefore, there are no past projects analogous to the Kalea Bay project. --Width of Buildings: Building 1 is nearly completed and is 50 feet wider than shown on the BCC approved SDPs. The apparent intent is to also make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building to the plan. Increasing the width of these buildings would further exacerbate the building separation issue and result in them being just 109 feet, 165 feet, 100 feet and 100 feet apart. --Guest Suites: The developer has added twelve (12) guest suites as accessory units. The PUD lists guest suites and cabanas as permitted uses and they are to be counted as part of the total number of residential units-- 590. Four 20 story buildings, each with 120 units, equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Adding twelve guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So, as of this date, and without bringing the issue to the BCC for a public hearing and without the approval by a BCC supermajority required by the Settlement Agreement, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of units specified. -- Height: Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top structures such as the community meeting room and fitness center. According to the PUD, "building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the upper-most finished ceiling elevation of the roof structure." The elevated pool adds to the building height as well. Also, County Land Development Code staff and Zoning & Land Development staff issued an official clarification on the issue of roof-top accessory structures: SC 2004-05. "...the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased height, and refers to unenclosed, unroofed, and non-air-conditioned space for recreation use." (Exhibit 36). A housing unit (a habitable structure) has been added to the upper garage level, conflicting further with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. Numerous attempts to attain an explanation for such conduct have fallen on deaf ears. These include attempts such as: asking questions to staff (Exhibit 15,26), speaking with our District 2 Commissioner (Time line Feb 24, 2017), and addressing each of the Commissioners (Time line: Feb 22, 2017, Feb 27, 2017, March 20, 2017) to share our concerns. (Exhibits 15-22) We have attended BCC meetings (April 18, 2017-Exhibit 27), sent letters to the newspaper (Exhibit 8, 8A), and emailed or visited staff (Exhibit 22A), but to no avail. These attempts took place both before and after construction of building one. In fact, appellants were forced to engage counsel [ Ralf Brookes] in early 2015. Appellants discovered that plans existing at the County are inconsistent with those submitted to South Florida Water Management District -- preventing any factual analysis to be conducted. (Exhibit 13A) On March 24, 2015, the developer attempted to breach the Agreement by adding 62 housing units to the eastern parcel (Exhibits 9, 10, 11). At that time, the Collier County Commissioners denied this attempt and agreed not to open or amend said Settlement Agreement. Residents in North Naples thought that the Settlement Agreement and PUD would protect the Cocohatchee Bay area as this Agreement promised "forever" and "in perpetuity." However, that has not proven to be true. Counsel for the appellants sent a letter to Collier County via the County Attorney (Exhibit 16) in which he stated our objections to non-compliance with the Settlement Agreement and PUD. Objections included: unreasonable building separations, the means by which those were determined, the lack of public hearing and the allowance of habitable space in the upper garage level. County Commissioners did not receive a copy, hence visits to each. If Kalea Bay were to be built as currently proposed, it would not be compatible with the neighborhood. (Exhibit 38) Nowhere else in this area are there high-rises where the distances between buildings have this degree of unreasonable separation. Ill. Relief Sought 1. ISSUE 1 NO PUBLIC HEARING: County staff has allowed changes to the SDPs approved in conjunction with the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement without a public hearing. As explained in the "Narrative Describing This Request," staff made significant changes that far exceeded minor adjustments, were not reasonable adjustments, and will have an observable negative impact on our community forever. RELIEF SOUGHT: The Collier County Board of Commissioners reject the significant adverse and unreasonable changes made by staff to the original SDPs. In addition, we request that the Collier County Board of Commissioners upholds the Settlement Agreement and requires that any changes to SDPs should be reviewed by staff and then submitted to the BCC for a public hearing. 2. ISSUE 2 BUILDING SEPARATION: The Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000, contains a Development Standards table (Exhibit 1 p 2375) with the formula for determining "distance between principal structures" (0.5 SBH *fn3) referencing a *footnote 3: "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." The formula 0.5 SBH means that the distance between buildings should be one-half the sum of the buildings' height (200' + 200' = 400' divided by 2 = 200'). Therefore, the distance between two buildings 200' in height should be 200'. Footnote 3 should be applied reasonably, and should not be used to drastically and significantly reduce setbacks, especially when buildings were made 50' wider than shown in the PUD. (See Issue 3 below). Taken to the extreme, footnote 3 should not be used to eliminate the requirements for building separation with no limit to the amount of administrative reduction. Typically, administrative reductions might involve a few feet or small percent but not drastic, significant reductions that will have an observable negative impact on our community forever. The staffs' unlimited interpretation of footnote 3 allowed Kalea Bay building separations to be reduced from the 200' required by code to 153', 126', 127' between buildings and reduced the setback from the lake to 431'. We have also highlighted a portion of a quote from the "CCPC SUMMARY OF COCOHATCHEE BERT HARRIS REVIEW" (Exhibit 7C) which is part of the Executive Summary dated April 22, 2008. It states, "However, as a result of the language in the PUD, the CCPC recommended that reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement Agreement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC." If you allow the widths of buildings 2-5 to be increased 50 feet(our 3rd ISSUE), building separations will be "less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC." RELIEF SOUGHT: We ask the Board of County Commissioners to enforce the building separation formula and require the 200' separation between buildings. For the future of our community, we request that limits be in place for the amount or degree of administrative reductions that can be made by County staff. While a 5 % reduction might be reasonable, a 50% reduction to the SDPs approved with the Settlement Agreement and PUD is not reasonable! 3. ISSUE 3 BUILDING WIDTHS: County staff administratively approved an increase in width from 260' to 310' for Kalea Bay Building 1. Apparently, the intent is to make Buildings 2-5 at least 50' wider as well, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building. Making the buildings wider exacerbates the already reduced and adjusted building separations. If buildings 2-5 are allowed to become 50' wider, the towers would be just 109; 165'100' and 100'apart —in most cases half the distance they should be. These buildings will appear to be a wall of concrete with very limited light, air flow and view between them. Depictions drawn to scale (Exhibit 37) illustrate that it would truly create a "condo-canyon" on the landscape along with the deep, uninterrupted shadows for drivers, pedestrians, and bikers. It would certainly detract from the sense of place in our community. The expansion of building widths, combined with the unreasonable administrative adjustment to building separations, gives Kalea Bay a look that is not compatible with our neighborhood. RELIEF SOUGHT: Retain the building widths approved in the PUD. Do not allow buildings 2-5 to be increased in width from 260' to 310'. This does not comply with the SDPs approved with the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 4. ISSUE 4 GUEST SUITES: The developer has added 12 guest suites as accessory units. The PUD lists guest suites under "Uses Permitted" as a "Principal Use" along with multi-family dwellings. Four 20 story buildings, each with 120 units, equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Adding twelve (12) guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So, as of this date, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of dwelling units specified. RELIEF SOUGHT: Require that guest suites be counted as part of the total number of residential units, a maximum total of 590. 5. ISSUE 5 BUILDING HEIGHT: Four (4) of the Kalea Bay towers are limited to 20 stories or a maximum of 200' in height and the fifth building is limited to 17 stories or a maximum of 175' in height. Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top features such as the community meeting room and fitness center which would violate these height limits. See Kalea Bay's website. RELIEF SOUGHT: Do not allow the Applicant to add an additional story to each building by enclosing the fitness center and community meeting room. Enforce the maximum height of each of the buildings as shown on the SDPs per the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 6. ISSUE 6 GARAGE DWELLING UNIT: A housing unit (habitable structure) has been added to the upper garage level which further conflicts with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. It also appears that this housing unit will not be counted as part of the density. RELIEF SOUGHT: Remove the dwelling unit from the upper level of the garage or count that garage level with the habitable floors. Furthermore, if the unit is allowed, it must be counted as part of the 590- maximum density per the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 7. ISSUE 7 RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: Paragraph eight of the Settlement Agreement states that one-fifth of the golf course parcel, east of Vanderbilt Drive, is to be placed into RECORDED Restrictive Covenants before or at the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each Kalea Bay building. Building 1 should be getting its Certificate of Occupancy in 2017. No Restrictive Covenant has been recorded. When the Restrictive Covenant is issued, it should be reviewed by the County Attorney prior to its recording. REQUEST: Monitor and be aware of this rapidly approaching requirement contained in the Settlement Agreement. That land was purposed to provide green space and additional buffering for adjacent communities and one-fifth of the golf course parcel, east of Vanderbilt Drive must be placed into a RECORDED Restrictive Covenant before or at the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each Kalea Bay building. 8. ISSUE 8 INVASIVE CONTROL: Glen Eden on the Lakes, for example, has been paying to have invasives removed from its 67.5' buffer (preserve) with the Cocohatchee Bay golf course for at least 15 years. However, the developer had not done maintenance within his 100' adjoining native vegetation buffer until 2016. At that point, the invasives had taken over to such a degree that the removal of invasives resulted in nearly total destruction of the vegetation buffer. REQUEST: Replant buffer with native trees and maintain vegetation buffer (preserve area) now that the invasive trees have finally been removed. We also request that compliance with county regulations regarding maintenance of preserves and removal of invasive species be monitored. 9. ISSUE 9 10 FOOT PATHWAY ON WEST SIDE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE: Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement requires a 10-foot pathway be constructed on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. It states that "This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. In 2016, the County dug up the old walkway west of Vanderbilt Drive to install new water pipes. Then, the County installed a new walkway west of Vanderbilt Drive. In some places, it is 6 feet wide; in some places, it is 8 feet wide; in some places, it is 9 feet wide. In some places, it is black asphalt and in other places it looks like cement sidewalk. It is hodge-podge in appearance and is definitely not a "10-foot pathway". We observed the County doing all the work on this walkway, but we do not know if it was built by or with Lodge funds. RELIEF SOUGHT: Require Lodge to pay for and install a complete 10- foot pathway on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive as per terms in the Settlement Agreement. IN SUMMARY: Appellants are requesting that the Collier County Board of Commissioners mandate compliance with the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release, signed on June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts the following day. Compliance as requested includes the Settlement Agreement, PUD, Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission and three SDPS reviewed and approved by staff. We request that you do not allow staff to approve changes to the SDPs WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING. We request that the building separation formula be applied to require building separation of%2 sum of the total building height for Kalea Bay towers. At the very least, we require that building separations not be "less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. Furthermore, we request that the BCC put limits in place regarding the amount or degree of administrative reductions that can be made by county staff. Clearly defined limitations would result in uniformity, transparency and consistency in staff decisions. We request that you do not allow staff to approve Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5 to be built 50 feet wider than the 260 feet shown on the approved SDPs. It is unfair to allow county staff to administratively change this important project component WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING. It is unconscionable to deny citizens and neighbors their procedural due process rights. Appellants deserve the opportunity to be heard IN A PUBLIC HEARING on whether these changes should have been approved by the County with staff input only.The changes that were made to Kalea Bay SDPs by staff were not minor changes of a couple of feet but major departures from what the citizens thought they were getting. REQUEST FOR RETURN OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL FEE FOR THIRD PARTY CITIZEN OBJECTORS: We request that the Collier County Commissioners waive or return the fee for this Administrative Appeal. We have tried contacting Commissioners on numerous occasions prior to the plans being approved by staff to let them know that the construction at Kalea Bay was not being done according to the Settlement Agreement, PUD and SDPs. The County Attorney advised us that the only way to bring this to your attention was to file an Administrative Appeal.That hardly seems fair. We hope you will waive the fee. Thank you. /s/Ralf Brookes Attorney for Appellants June 6, 2017 lett: 4116441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 RIci $26,00 C1I11 !0 SKI BOARD RECORDED in the 0llICIkL RICORDS of COLLIER COMM !L C04IIS 91.00 ii'ilIOflIC! 4711 ?LOCA 061101200$ at 10:46NK DNIGK! I. B1OC1, CLE11 EIS 7240 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this day of 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle MaRnt n, and f WHEREAS, the PUD to fuc tion is also som s referred to as the Cocohatchee ' Bay PUD, and .f 4 WHEREAS, Lodge filed a p ti n el! o {i° C T entieth Judicial Circuit in 1/4 n i tY- -th.00nr►t ' iSi n concerning the proposed and for Collier County, Flaric�a to attack y amendment to the PUD's Bald'Eagle Management Ptai that case being styled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier County as o�Q..5 -7,00n WHEREAS, on or around May 1, 2006, Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Harris Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4)(c) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. 1 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2346 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and Release, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound,Lodge and the County mutually agree to the following: 1. The County and Lodge agree to adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as"Whereas clauses"by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. The settlement documents will consist of the original PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 (Exhibit 1), the amended PUD (Exhibit 2), the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan for the amended PUD (attached as Exhibit "B" to the amended PUD), a phasing diagram entitled "Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Exht it",(Exhibi3 and a Pathway Depiction (Exhibit 4). This Agreement and Release, xvie sly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD,'` Absei an express tem in`his'Agreement and Release,the original PUD will control. ' 1 ( () ,� \ 1 : 1k, ` '- 1 ' site development plans 3. The settler iera;shall" bentinge ;t dim P ("SDPs") that Lodge has submitted being approvediby the Cc unty, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County'as.'.well..as the- evelopment standards set forth in the original PUD and as may be varied by the-express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR5283 and AR5284. 4. The County will expedite the review of these three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. The existing environmental impact statement ("EIS") does not need to be amended unless the SDPs are revised to increase wetland impact beyond the impact currently permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five(5%)percent. 5. Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential 2 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2341 condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable workforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment. 6. Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, Lodge shall contribute the sum of$3 million to the County to fund Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements. No impact fee credits shall be given for payment of this sum. Lodge recognizes that the County may request additional contributions up to the proposed road impact fees due for 590414114.tutits,to assist the County in funding the construction of the Vanderbilt p dge enhancerriiia No such additional contributions shall be required, however, until tble_County"provides evil ncc;that all parties have spent $5,500,000.00 on the Vanoilerbihi ' 4g enharieetrietW1 Any such sums paid over the initial $3 million shall ree'cOe °road impact fee-credits 'Notturig in this Agreement and • L' ✓ 4 f zf v Release, however, is intended'tQ nor shall it restnct,'in any 4.4 the County's ability under exit applicable laws,ordinances or rules*r ��uir� r�,, �(50%)of all transportation impact fees upon approval of the SDPs. These funds shall be refunded to Lodge should Lodge be permanently prevented from commencing construction based upon actions by any governmental entity or any third party. County shall be entitled to retain these funds without any need for reimbursement upon the earlier of(1) Lodge's commencement of construction of the first tower, or(2) the exhaustion of time to file any third party challenge with respect to any matter concerned by this Agreement and the attachments hereto. 7. Lodge and the County agree that the Cocohatchee Bay PUD shall be exempted from the County's PUD sunsetting provisions within the LDC until the Effective 3 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth(1/5) of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or,golf egur se,is ever discontinued or abandoned for ti.. any reason, then all of the GC -1ar1f`including without'limitation the entire golf course development area, except fear thoseipions-allowed;for th two (2) residential units, shall s-^..a' ,- rot.' ,47.---7---A, , ,-, remain forever as green op`n . . �ai�i 'bye t�iriitOdOn t to 74 Mthe uses expressly allowed it i ; 11l , . s Preserve' arce .1, y,, 1sions to these restrictive in Paragraph 5.3 of the a -. , 1 i covenants will require a super amity vote of the Board¢fCbu tty Commissioners. 9. To fully satisfy it3,oVigations to constdt.sidewalks along adjacent off-site public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway ten(10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006) in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2349 (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in Building Height, as defined in Paragraph 3.5 entitled "Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the amended PUD, and Footnote 2 thereto. 11. The maximum number of dwelling units to be constructed by Lodge shall not exceed 590 units. Of these,a maximum of 590 units may be multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However,two (2) units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as set forth in Section 4.4 in the amended PUD,attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 12. What has been referredto gas;he R-1°and R-2 Parcels shall be replaced by a single R parcel as set forth in th'e revised PUD Master Plan;'Fattached to the amended PUD. § y 1 The development standards/for the\R.Parcel are as.rset forth‘ ab le II of Paragraph 3.5 of e p m i d tAgreement and Release).o the amended PUD(except as mayy, e, re�.sl�r ,�'f dtt* s B aManagement Plan required 13. If there are .additional c ange n s 1 / by federal or state agencies, ti;further County PU`IFantendmclnt process shall be required. The County acknowledges that the kmended.-Bald Eagle anagement Plan is in compliance with the County regulations. Lodge shall be exempt from any County regulations that may be adopted in the future applicable to the Bald Eagle and the County shall defer to the state and federal regulatory permitting process relating to the Bald Eagle Management Plan and issues related thereto. Lodge, however, shall be required to notify the County of any such changes required by state or federal agencies, which will then require an administrative change by the County to any of the previously approved SDPs under review or that have been approved by the County. Any change to the construction sequencing shall be considered an insubstantial change to the SDP. 14. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit 2. 5 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2350 15. Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees, insurers, sureties, agents, attorneys, and representatives of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord.No. 2000-88, the related Bald Eagle Management Plan or any amendment or proposed amendment to the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 or the Bald Eagle Management Plan through the date this Agreement and Release are approved and authorized by the Board for the Chairman's signature including without limitation all Bert Hams Act claims and the claim asserted .in Case No. 05-967-CA This release shall be immediately effective upon the County's approval;of'the 3 SDf s in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 3F ofihiS Pease•f' -. -t" c e is-Agreement and Release, the 16. In the event ,.or;a t�dfarty fi�8 Countyand Lodge agree to work cooperatively to defend..thts Agreement and Release. In this regard, the County and Lodge shall each_seekto become parties to any such challenge proceeding if one or the other of them is not named as a party in the first instance. The County and Lodge shall each bear their own costs and attorney's fees in any such proceeding. 17. If any third party challenge to this Agreement and Release should ever be successful, after exhaustion of all appeals or other requests for review or reconsideration or federal permit conditions prevent Lodge from being able to develop the project consistent with the amended PUD Master Plan then the County agrees to return all money provided by Lodge under this Agreement and Release upon sixty(60)days written notice from Lodge and to allow Lodge to retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. In addition,if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain 6 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2351 required federal permits for the SDPs as referenced in this document and is therefore unable to build this project(exclusive of any federal permits or approvals for docks), Lodge likewise will be entitled to a refund of all money provided under this Agreement and Release within sixty (60) days of written notice from Lodge and Lodge shall retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. 18. Nothing in this Agreement and Release or the settlement documents shall be construed or interpreted to confer any right to docks or any particular number of docks. 19. The Agreement and Release shall be binding upon Lodge's and the County's predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, present and former employees, owners, present and former elected or appointed officials, insurers, p incif als,and representatives, who shall work together in good faith to accompli sti the intent.of this Agreement and Release. 20. This Agreement and'Rtelease shal0e)gpveiei by the laws of the State of 7. Florida. "!, e / ; 21. This Agreernenf-fid Release may beNatnrrnded,only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement7and.Release and.executed with the same formalities ,,ter as this Agreement and Release. This Agreement and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. 22. The County and Lodge acknowledge that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision that my exist in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party either based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous language or that the language in question was intended to favor one party or the other. 7 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2352 23. The Effective Date of this Agreement and Release shall be the date upon which the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, executes this document. 24. The County and Lodge acknowledge and assume the risk that additional, different or contrary facts to the facts which they believe exist may now exist or may be discovered after this Agreement and Release has been entered into, and they agree that any such additional, different or contrary facts shall in no way limit, waive, affect or alter this Agreement and Release. The County affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the.prc leei ais authorized by the PUD and this Agreement and Release or the enforceability t tis Agreement and.Release. Lodge affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that. would prohibit they\coni truction of the project as `ter\ \ !th `A eemertt an}i,R l or the enforceability of this authorized by the PUD end; �' , � � ; Agreement and Release. ` 3\•O''"?\ 25. In the eventreach of this Agreetnent and an&Release, either party to this Agreement and Release may enforce i%s terms e Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In this respect,theounty and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REMAINING SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 8 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST , .:,. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E.,OtocK,, CLERK COLLIER CO TY, F ORIDA . . 34 i i By:_Is ... By: _ It vidaill ii to atil : 0 -.uty lerk TOM ENNING,CHAIRM• 1 signature earth' ''. ' WIT; S E4S3',4 f Signed Name Name 42(cs,{040 7: keoe-y/iy, Print ' Name 7 .......40"/„x .6 . • .4' ."' i Si•-.,/-• Name , LODGE • :BOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC -1 BY 'if*O.,tC-, /A) jit2itiog 0 (' 14/ /4iiiITS: )ilkpAcarrc Printed Name \ /c------Th _.., r.... \ \ i.*--Th „,.. \ \ Ap. .ved as to form 1 11,77"..4N(/? ,,,, 7 \ .., , and e! ..0 .3' ii.) ' ‘ , -•ilif filb 111 ,,•`•*,,-, . ',''') J11 Je . A. Ki ow COU y AttO 1 y .....„--- 9 2/28/08 revision • t" A'•=,4#4,'''' in , 't4.24 il r 1 •:i,' -.. • !...*. .f.,.. 1 i i 0"zt W si.44,4,;44r4.o., ,44,44?9;101,„, A! It:•.; I— , i !Top 11 i 11,p,q,A . ,,. ./ r:4,• 2 k 1 s k , V •.)rlhil.litlq n' illailksbr I I ' 1 ] ! 111111 . i A sLi ,,,,,”;;?,. ,. , •k 1 : - Hi [ I . ilii i 40 I X" • !7'• 1 1 X 1 1 - 1" I, - .4 tt;1;4 ttttfi4 /Ai •!]''1414!:: !•4-kil 14. ; ; 4 ! IX,11.Ft i01 : If ir'lg•41 ''''91 41 -!!!!!,!t!:!i41:: i '''44;,4i,4, •'' -'444jt' .': l• X :•!1' ; '''-'1:1f:1 ! ! 1 ! 1:•'44.: 1 i ! I ---\r,, ,. . , .,',,],.,k - , 1p. 4 ; ,. lb . 1 1 1 , .4, '14• ., , 4 !,: ',1..:444.4'...„„.„. t 4: ,..,4 4 i Si i “4444;... 111.4 lilt",i0" 11.11.0. '•Q g rt - ! ' . I l'-f7:. ''''.r r , 1 P.; i''''! !'l'ig Iii,ii7IgAr‘• LN I ! 1 ! ! •,4 , ,• , 4 , X 4 h ; 4 '-'-' 1 V ' , 1 <1! 1 I, 1 , ! I i 1 i - : • , : h --/-4-1'--4: \•- it!:44Xi:' 4'i;H'ii"le."'1 $4141 4 ii Xi X! X;• ' 44 I ! i 1 I 144 , „ 1, ii, , I 9tl,iil9 l ,',,,,,-,.,,•,•- ----, ,-,!.. , 1 5;. ilNe."- 0 6 I 1',M Igit',2; a 4 '' <010, AID -, -7 , '''....,-•--.- \-I, 1.--4 : ,., ; 4 I ,.-- Tp.,4r"— q„,„,,,.i •,,, ...,,,. • i 1 L',---1,-.• ,.." ,,,,,, g„, p, s+4 ‘‘);-„.1,:14 Ii-,w117.-,0 H.: 1 • :,,,,,„; i _ ,,,,,,- ••443 _...4___. 17:',:11:1 ,-;,5 ,. 9 'S- f4 , ri--- • .- t-F•4\.,-;,:fi 1•: I— st 1-1- I ., -r-,, . q, , ',---., ,i7.' _,) - N't-,.' ',P,'-'•-, E. cf) z , - • - - ' I. , ,,-,v,Nitr", ', sJ (1.>"A.' te. Lu 0 9'4 1 _1,"1r li li,WS„,;\,--In, '."--). k?: k 1411: 1=' kl• ..e; Me-?- ••••,,0 1 . 2 0 , / 1 I c A h,c,1>' — Nt\N,,, '',4%., '' • — ,....:- ,...., 0 I 0, E/i ,- , ,.. -!••;', - '-,,',-, :',-,,,;---- ; 114 12111%. "*-4 L.,...,, ct)17Z1 2 1 ,' ,TV 2 °6 0 1 (-7,•-• '1 IL I.. .44 , 4%5 ,...., < ii ,,--1 r,. IIR;1C -2 CL 06 1'l ) 1 I I 4 .::,-. P--,-'• , ••••.. . (/) . Oa (f) %10......: 4.1 4-1 0 4044•41 :ITIFi C_) LIJ (J) II 9 -+ {ill' "z7 1 ,, •1 ,. i'' ,7:; ' 'i', -4' ',," ',' "," ' `,,, „ , „, , , .„„ , A J*.si I r'ilil W0i ''' 'iii -' '' :.-; '' r'• 'i'‘' ''''' '''. ''''', 0 i i 1441 Ci '8 6 9 K1 14, ,,. 111 , 1111 1 wit iiiil ,•,•,34,,„1 ., , ,-,.1-.t.k t. ',..4.4,•,4. 0.., ,-,•-q- Selk , ,R,e-V.:Vc ' ,,,.,1.,,„ -, .i. `.:t'.,1 CO ', Z \.........(•,) 1 1 I io I i f-I41 1 4+i I IP-I 4100r,A ,!"•k;'' 't::;l'',;,'I ,,,Z''',, ';,,,r1V,,,,'';%`.t !I il'"?:.: :;:''''- F--.8 ,_,,.. 0. z0.9-A 1 1 , 1 1 1 I III A601,,- ' 404.W4i AKZ2444 th" '2-• ii I I II th . ,,.44 to 4 •.0;,•;:rit 4. ... t i.. 5k'Li 4;4.444.94 i i;'; t4;1;4'; XXitlf.44W 4' 1 144 - XX • :,,,e4.„,t,i1,,:::,-,t n . 40000.1W4143t: !," ;;; 'i'li 4"1';31.0:1P- le&A. h'4k; ":4:041i. :',§ 1 ;0 :10ViN"Milr'n 0;I:!-ItegliNtAi;P: " % ','ii',"ki iVt"Fali .4 4,t 1 lqt h?eXIXF',100,1/3,11 AS"a'F"t hK",t' '14 i 2 11 l'OE'Wl""hieN' V '; itkg14P4.12g;IP-511 ":.I12 0:42t-i l''' ,022- im,211.1 2' . ! ig -T-'12,12,2111 1112 Ir ,'f $41-g.i 4.241"" 1-, "V1 '2!z-ii122r! i ,11 4 2i2Id?$*,1%1 ;' ,1,‘1411!ii!,W111 1 i19$;'70iii:-:011.1! il. Nil P11 it,-P;iY4131,"Tii411 ilbg/.4 !',Ikirigill;;; i i Pd lig01/1: Ng il,11,04-iriiii: iii NI , .. ;4!41;tf'4,01PiXti 'XiX4i444441 X:XF";:i? .X. 4; ti4ei 19 1999999 !, 11 . la -ii4P4644:41; t;';!X 1 '*1 I'X441 4 4'ilaX; 4P;4.!;;4440 !04,;;A ;4 X ; XMliTX;4P44;;2 4 .-4!!X4;411141!1:;;NiX; , 4 A X 44,14041XX4XXItii;; tO 1 Ilb.iPlot;Iiim,1! .t1A:it,4 :!=:5/Vgliqt': 4 i:t.e':gr Init:Oi4i! A': 9 III ':tAly-').4,-: :i,:, 'io' '0 ttliir";-•..'4:414,41“‘4 :,-,,,i111:fil Artot41.t:y4-i;;41i2,:: 931 ii‘14:6:021:43K 11,0:i:04i4::t :il 0,, i-4.0 46-,14-iklsk,t.i.vtittli i.e. p;,a,,, Wirloi :'; 0! ii:1-'0,0„fi.wilt w g 0 i-Px-PtiiI4II'l t-,A 011 W' ii:hili4V:1,MlilikW 151;,' .4 4C1041.: a 0 i,V .i!gi5:0,tt, ''.,,',:rf it!.•1!,10,24P(^410k: '.'," ',g;01 e.1,,;L"" ,1;4017,V,:ii.j.,0 d %,;,OL,,H”ftwd oitil, I0t4iO4.04gV4alliN/Iintr:449;;Iiq444'40 ""itt41..0.41h• i4"114!";; " ;a': X,,;;;14:4• itiiiittItt4;41 At,kli$.3 i tihn Vitli It.Rad i ..----....* , s a "." ,'klkld1 kn 'ate ab a4 AVM aM1 3SZ�„�tl'SBI?4 01'OZ6[I'9t'9 a° S IAL9'!IY OS MO 1.4'9IW d•AVO Y37YX -- a 7awnu� ,,,,ns 0..Itsw0.4W1 .,ao- iwan pp fg[cw ,t 000I-L99-f(f asp `F CO x+sras-asx^ ri r �R�}, aa' ZOnt NY YaNW n� n dno(�u„)$u.Nnsuo� F.Y. 0a .oer A. .,fa, ,„,,,„,,,,e., � 7 15 04.40706Ke,eec ..600. b�2Ua „ xw; a n%wow Ua79Y/ Po 1 i `:u iw, 1z n. ¢ eM Z 1 }Yx4 -, Y - �j S z '-----:-: oY r ei^ Fyy �`t y:i;,i4! & N1 i A S.reV aYYr�S6 m F sa..1 gi ( x z El E fl a, x k l g H x t g $ kg1. ? , c1 t f is£ e et k p "a it Ei$ t " ! l gI ItI ii gl It tt i pp 'gpq 'y8d z[a�i� g ; ge 4 6t t i9 t2 E; ` 9 al144. wl 4a 10 1 p , h!• II 5s Y sx 1 1/t " t i sth 000 ,a It I11-1aillf t x ex 1 4 gy xEt E , ' t°4ily3 P IVIII�y �. y t� Al!'k � g ! I�.t 1 :� � {gyp 51 1� ! & �. § a t o @E tt b pi d ip its ti:It s ; t ,t € �£:�# t;� ti ; ! !a 3 a a, S 0 s i p 1 d ! Ui 11 I F a t 1 iss « I #; uu • - -La onsnd) (ArM �o - I l06AVA 110 3N?!0 'A -- _ ' ---'�- �� -- -- .'" _ - h -ter- =_'�' .�.*-._ ^ -y ,( III- i8� Il"i- _�� _ . YY 4I111 I a -1 I- �r-- ' ' 1 u �Z ,„0. � J 7� 4_ ''' ' ' ' ' '4-"',.e. 4::v i_ 1 t i , 1 lg 5-1!, '''-—}' ,..'i ^est d/ � i�, i ` pq� ham' -- 4: Y/ !J .t } awe/isro oto , -t. ' d4, „e,,,.%6 , d&a r� — / \ yy V� • t -..m... t fix, \ , i lL i' 1 r ti i. A ss ter ' K �'vl” �p h I i I . nit - y v 4✓',0,1 • . ,.• ' A v,- '� E ' ('� ,Q p / y g1 yg qg y/y'a'� J #p ' 1.. . :'a,Oma`..—•, \\ / d.. c` si „/-"aZB ' "'o. ' �� `g, x VA' 1`\ ,'�°2`1.7�a �, ,,.. " ,,,,_: 14111r " @@.. f,.g,.,t,,,A."::::::".$1.4,,../t. ,,A. r '°� tip xx �\ l , v- "t au_ I''� w t,' . a $ ,,y' 3 : : .. , ,, ,, . , , , , , 71 \\ ,.��}&55 �h,. 3x1 ' �+., a.- '— . : t A� - art,tg g o '' \ '� yl_.� . a • • , 'SkEl 1 /ie. :; , - 'i. EC:VP' 'f',' Z.,'.', ,'.',','.'•,4.'•',.'•' V'.'• , - ' .'''''..-----;t A) • •.•.•.•.'.')'.'.')' III ‘,,,,,,-,k, �,A� , ' : i r cc,,,-,:tit, ,l i S w\ 1 ,, e �\ tl , .' ,'ts ,cam' t? '• • \\\ a gas 2t '� ' ex tlg ' � l ll ;�� 'l< ,, ' - !< .....,-;-,;(r., L>:a I l 11' ., vv .' • • 4%, 'E ' r' lx, ll I1'' I 1� .,. 11':1:. .1`,-.\.„ 1 1:. . < ,� .it` l Y ;l l l l' 1‹.',',?' I I I l l l l�� ,`\ • (.ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REQUEST Appellants are requesting that the Collier County Board of Commissioners reverse the: 1. administrative reduction in building separation and 2. administrative increase in building widths and 3. administrative approval of additional dwelling units and 4. administrative increase in overall building height all of which are described in further detail in the narrative below, and were made without a public hearing, and without providing a procedural due process noticed opportunity for adversely affected third parties, including Appellants and the public,to be heard. Appellants further request the Collier County Board of Commissioners mandate compliance with the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release, signed on June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts the following day, which references the 3 SDPs approved before, or concurrent with, recording of the Settlement Agreement and referenced in the Settlement Agreement, paragraph 3 (Exhibit 19) and require that any significant changes to the PUD and the SDPs approved in conjunction with said Settlement Agreement be approved by the BCC and require a supermajority vote of the BCC pursuant to the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and Release. II. Narrative Describing the Request and Legal Basis for Appeal The Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement, PUD, the Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission, and three SDPs reviewed and approved by staff, were approved by the Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as "BCC") on April 22, 2008. (Exhibit 7).This action was taken as part of the Summary Agenda. The BCC approved all documents as presented without objection from the County Attorney, County Manager, county staff, the petitioner, and the petitioner's agent or citizens.The Settlement Agreement, signed on June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts the following day, is a legally binding document in which paragraph 21 unambiguously relates that any changes must be "executed with the same formalities" specified in this Agreement. (Exhibit 19) Thus, changes must be approved by a supermajority of the BCC. Even apart from the Settlement Agreement, the Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000, contains a Development Standards table (Exhibit 1 p 2375) with the formula for determining "distance between principal structures" (0.5 SBH *fn3) The formula 0.5 SBH means that the distance between buildings should be one-half the sum of the buildings' height (200' + 200' = 400' divided by 2 = 200'). Therefore, the distance between two buildings 200' in height should be at least 200'.The Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000 does contains a *footnote 3: "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." Footnote 3 should not be applied to allow unreasonable, significant major reductions or increases without first going to the BOCC. Footnote 3 administrative reductions should only be applied reasonably to minor or insignificant reductions unless these changes are brought back to the BOCC and procedural due process is afforded to affected third parties and citizens. Administrative staff reductions should not have been used to drastically and significantly reduce setback distances between buildings to nearly half the required setback, or to increase the width of buildings 50' wider than shown in the PUD. The setback were nearly halved without a public hearing and opportunity for public comment on significant changes to building separation distances without procedural due process notice and a right to be heard in a BOCC public hearing. The county staff does not have the requisite authority to make modifications to the SDPs utilizing administrative. Despite this fact, the following changes to Cocohatchee Bay aka Kalea Bay have already been implemented in phase 1 and have been approved by staff for phases II-VI: -- Building Separations: Building separations are less than code minimums of 1/2 the sum of the building heights, and less than the already reduced and adjusted separations (as per PUD footnote #3, Exhibit 7A) shown on the SDPs attached to the PUD and Settlement Agreement.Those separations are as follows: building 1 to 2, 153 feet; building 2 to 3, 126 feet; building 3 to 4, 127 feet; building 4 to 5, 341 feet. (Exhibit 7A). Building 1 is now nearly completed and is 50 feet wider than shown on the BCC approved SDPs. The apparent intent is to also make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building to the plan. Increasing the width of these buildings would further exacerbate the building separation issue and result in them being just 109 feet, 165 feet, 100 feet and 100 feet apart. Staff interpretation that there is no limit to an administrative reduction building separations because of clauses such as 'footnote #3', is not a credible interpretation, reducing the language to an absurdity. Additionally, staff cannot ignore the fact that the CCPC memo was included on the Summary Agenda and was approved by The Board on April 22, 2008. (Exhibit 7C). To quote from the CCPC review that was accepted and approved by Board action, "However, as a result of language in the PUD, the CCPC recommended reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. As an alternative to the reduction in separation, greater distances could be provided by moving alternating towers closer to Vanderbilt Drive." (Exhibit 7C). Collier staff members unilaterally, and without authority, permitted significant major modifications without noticing a public hearing by the BCC. In the Memorandum (Exhibit 33) attached to Amendment SDPA PL20160002242, in the Amendment Approval Notification, staff cited several examples of alleged historical application of administrative reduction. Only one of the citations was a high-rise and that was for a side set- back which is not a building separation issue. In Brandon Sancho's response to our request for public records (Exhibit 25) showing all instances in Collier County in which staff allowed administrative reduction of the required minimum separation between skewed buildings having a common architectural theme (Exhibit 26), "The footnote in question is related to the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD). The only project that has utilized this specific footnote is Kinsale Condominiums Phases II-VI, SDP-2004-AR-5284." Kinsale is i r Cocohatchee Bay as indicated later in his response. Therefore, there are no past projects analogous to the Kalea Bay project. --Width of Buildings: Building 1 is nearly completed and is 50 feet wider than shown on the BCC approved SDPs. The apparent intent is to also make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building to the plan. Increasing the width of these buildings would further exacerbate the building separation issue and result in them being just 109 feet, 165 feet, 100 feet and 100 feet apart. --Guest Suites: The developer has added twelve (12) guest suites as accessory units. The PUD lists guest suites and cabanas as permitted uses and they are to be counted as part of the total number of residential units-- 590. Four 20 story buildings, each with 120 units, equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Adding twelve guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So, as of this date, and without bringing the issue to the BCC for a public hearing and without the approval by a BCC supermajority required by the Settlement Agreement, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of units specified. -- Height: Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top structures such as the community meeting room and fitness center. According to the PUD, "building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the upper-most finished ceiling elevation of the roof structure."The elevated pool adds to the building height as well.Also, County Land Development Code staff and Zoning & Land Development staff issued an official clarification on the issue of roof-top accessory structures: SC 2004-05. "...the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased height, and refers to unenclosed, unroofed, and non-air-conditioned space for recreation use." (Exhibit 36). A housing unit (a habitable structure) has been added to the upper garage level, conflicting further with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. Numerous attempts to attain an explanation for such conduct have fallen on deaf ears. These include attempts such as: asking questions to staff (Exhibit 15,26), speaking with our District 2 Commissioner (Time line Feb 24, 2017), and addressing each of the Commissioners (Time line: Feb 22, 2017, Feb 27, 2017, March 20, 2017) to share our concerns. (Exhibits 15-22) We have attended BCC meetings (April 18, 2017-Exhibit 27), sent letters to the newspaper (Exhibit 8, 8A), and emailed or visited staff(Exhibit 22A), but to no avail. These attempts took place both before and after construction of building one. In fact, appellants were forced to engage counsel [ Ralf Brookes] in early 2015. Appellants discovered that plans existing at the County are inconsistent with those submitted to South Florida Water Management District -- preventing any factual analysis to be conducted. (Exhibit 13A) On March 24, 2015, the developer attempted to breach the Agreement by adding 62 housing units to the eastern parcel (Exhibits 9, 10, 11). At that time, the Collier County Commissioners denied this attempt and agreed not to open or amend said Settlement Agreement. Residents in North Naples thought that the Settlement Agreement and PUD would protect the Cocohatchee Bay area as this Agreement promised "forever" and "in perpetuity." However, that has not proven to be true. Counsel for the appellants sent a letter to Collier County via the County Attorney (Exhibit 16) in which he stated our objections to non-compliance with the Settlement Agreement and PUD. Objections included: unreasonable building separations, the means by which those were determined, the lack of public hearing and the allowance of habitable space in the upper garage level. County Commissioners did not receive a copy, hence visits to each. If Kalea Bay were to be built as currently proposed, it would not be compatible with the neighborhood. (Exhibit 38) Nowhere else in this area are there high-rises where the distances between buildings have this degree of unreasonable separation. Ill. Relief Sought 1. ISSUE 1 NO PUBLIC HEARING: County staff has allowed changes to the SDPs approved in conjunction with the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement without a public hearing. As explained in the "Narrative Describing This Request," staff made significant changes that far exceeded minor adjustments, were not reasonable adjustments, and will have an observable negative impact on our community forever. RELIEF SOUGHT: The Collier County Board of Commissioners reject the significant adverse and unreasonable changes made by staff to the original SDPs. In addition, we request that the Collier County Board of Commissioners upholds the Settlement Agreement and requires that any changes to SDPs should be reviewed by staff and then submitted to the BCC for a public hearing. 2. ISSUE 2 BUILDING SEPARATION: The Cocohatchee Bay PUD, approved December 12, 2000, contains a Development Standards table (Exhibit 1 p 2375) with the formula for determining "distance between principal structures" (0.5 SBH *fn3) referencing a *footnote 3: "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." The formula 0.5 SBH means that the distance between buildings should be one-half the sum of the buildings' height (200' + 200' = 400' divided by 2 = 200'). Therefore, the distance between two buildings 200' in height should be 200'. Footnote 3 should be applied reasonably, and should not be used to drastically and significantly reduce setbacks, especially when buildings were made 50' wider than shown in the PUD. (See Issue 3 below). Taken to the extreme, footnote 3 should not be used to eliminate the requirements for building separation with no limit to the amount of administrative reduction. Typically, administrative reductions might involve a few feet or small percent but not drastic, significant reductions that will have an observable negative impact on our community forever. The staffs' unlimited interpretation of footnote 3 allowed Kalea Bay building separations to be reduced from the 200' required by code to 153', 126', 127' between buildings and reduced the setback from the lake to 431'. We have also highlighted a portion of a quote from the "CCPC SUMMARY OF COCOHATCHEE BERT HARRIS REVIEW" (Exhibit 7C) which is part of the Executive Summary dated April 22, 2008. It states, "However, as a result of the language in the PUD, the CCPC recommended that reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement Agreement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC." If you allow the widths of buildings 2-5 to be increased 50 feet(our 3'ISSUE), building separations will be "less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC." RELIEF SOUGHT: We ask the Board of County Commissioners to enforce the building separation formula and require the 200' separation between buildings. For the future of our community, we request that limits be in place for the amount or degree of administrative reductions that can be made by County staff. While a 5 % reduction might be reasonable, a 50% reduction to the SDPs approved with the Settlement Agreement and PUD is not reasonable! 3. ISSUE 3 BUILDING WIDTHS: County staff administratively approved an increase in width from 260' to 310' for Kalea Bay Building 1. Apparently, the intent is to make Buildings 2-5 at least 50' wider as well, thus adding the equivalent of a sixth building. Making the buildings wider exacerbates the already reduced and adjusted building separations. If buildings 2-5 are allowed to become 50' wider, the towers would be just 109; 165'100'and 100'apart —in most cases half the distance they should be. These buildings will appear to be a wall of concrete with very limited light, air flow and view between them. Depictions drawn to scale (Exhibit 37) illustrate that it would truly create a "condo-canyon" on the landscape along with the deep, uninterrupted shadows for drivers, pedestrians, and bikers. It would certainly detract from the sense of place in our community. The expansion of building widths, combined with the unreasonable administrative adjustment to building separations, gives Kalea Bay a look that is not compatible with our neighborhood. RELIEF SOUGHT: Retain the building widths approved in the PUD. Do not allow buildings 2-5 to be increased in width from 260' to 310'. This does not comply with the SDPs approved with the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 4. ISSUE 4 GUEST SUITES: The developer has added 12 guest suites as accessory units. The PUD lists guest suites under "Uses Permitted" as a "Principal Use" along with multi-family dwellings. Four 20 story buildings, each with 120 units, equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Adding twelve (12) guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So, as of this date, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of dwelling units specified. RELIEF SOUGHT: Require that guest suites be counted as part of the total number of residential units, a maximum total of 590. 5. ISSUE 5 BUILDING HEIGHT: Four (4) of the Kalea Bay towers are limited to 20 stories or a maximum of 200' in height and the fifth building is limited to 17 stories or a maximum of 175' in height. Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top features such as the community meeting room and fitness center which would violate these height limits. See Kalea Bay's website. RELIEF SOUGHT: Do not allow the Applicant to add an additional story to each building by enclosing the fitness center and community meeting room. Enforce the maximum height of each of the buildings as shown on the SDPs per the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 6. ISSUE 6 GARAGE DWELLING UNIT: A housing unit (habitable structure) has been added to the upper garage level which further conflicts with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. It also appears that this housing unit will not be counted as part of the density. RELIEF SOUGHT: Remove the dwelling unit from the upper level of the garage or count that garage level with the habitable floors. Furthermore, if the unit is allowed, it must be counted as part of the 590- maximum density per the Settlement Agreement and PUD. 7. ISSUE 7 RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: Paragraph eight of the Settlement Agreement states that one-fifth of the golf course parcel, east of Vanderbilt Drive, is to be placed into RECORDED Restrictive Covenants before or at the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each Kalea Bay building. Building 1 should be getting its Certificate of Occupancy in 2017. No Restrictive Covenant has been recorded. When the Restrictive Covenant is issued, it should be reviewed by the County Attorney prior to its recording. REQUEST: Monitor and be aware of this rapidly approaching requirement contained in the Settlement Agreement. That land was purposed to provide green space and additional buffering for adjacent communities and one-fifth of the golf course parcel, east of Vanderbilt Drive must be placed into a RECORDED Restrictive Covenant before or at the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each Kalea Bay building. 8. ISSUE 8 INVASIVE CONTROL: Glen Eden on the Lakes, for example, has been paying to have invasives removed from its 67.5' buffer(preserve) with the Cocohatchee Bay golf course for at least 15 years. However, the developer had not done maintenance within his 100' adjoining native vegetation buffer until 2016. At that point, the invasives had taken over to such a degree that the removal of invasives resulted in nearly total destruction of the vegetation buffer. REQUEST: Replant buffer with native trees and maintain vegetation buffer (preserve area) now that the invasive trees have finally been removed. We also request that compliance with county regulations regarding maintenance of preserves and removal of invasive species be monitored. 9. ISSUE 9 10 FOOT PATHWAY ON WEST SIDE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE: Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement requires a 10-foot pathway be constructed on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. It states that "This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project." In 2016, the County dug up the old walkway west of Vanderbilt Drive to install new water pipes. Then, the County installed a new walkway west of Vanderbilt Drive. In some places, it is 6 feet wide; in some places, it is 8 feet wide; in some places, it is 9 feet wide. In some places, it is black asphalt and in other places it looks like cement sidewalk. It is hodge-podge in appearance and is definitely not a "10-foot pathway". We observed the County doing all the work on this walkway, but we do not know if it was built by or with Lodge funds. RELIEF SOUGHT: Require Lodge to pay for and install a complete 10- foot pathway on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive as per terms in the Settlement Agreement. btu: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 RIC PaB E26.00 CLERK TO TBE BOARD RECORDED in the OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COMM?!, PL COPIES 27.00 IR{ROFFICB 4?H FLOOR 06110/2008 it I0:46AH DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK IIT 7240 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this day of?c,t,e1 , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle and WHEREAS, the PUD}n ucstion is also sorneti s� eferred to as the Cocohatchee I ,� Bay PUD; and `-'' \ 4 77 .u` _-- t WHEREAS, Lodge filed ,* 4 p i n of 4' o`: �. 1 T entieth Judicial Circuit in atta k-the County i concerning the proposed and for Collier County, Fltqicla` r , amendment to the PUD's Baltlti` agle Management lain,�tha case being styled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier Cotyi tfase unNa..05,.967-C4, d WHEREAS, on or around May 1, 2006, Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Harris Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4)(c) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. 1 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2346 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and Release, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound,Lodge and the County mutually agree to the following: 1. The County and Lodge agree to adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as"Whereas clauses"by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. The settlement documents will consist of the original PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 (Exhibit 1), the amended PUD (Exhibit 2), the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan for the amended PUD (attached as Exhibit "B" to the amended PUD), a phasing diagram entitled "Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Exhibit"X3-3 .,-and a Pathway Depiction (Exhibit 4). This Agreement and Release , sly c states the acepjrable deviations in development / standards from the original PUD.t A art expres term in'his`Agreement and Release,the original PUD will control. ( (rIsN(h) )71)) W\ 3. The settletrte ' shall be---centi rge it upon- three site development plans ("SDPs") that Lodge has subMilted being approved%Gy the=,dainty, in accordance with the 1—;,,\,. / rules and regulations of the Cou nt a`welLas the;de elopment standards set forth in the k. original PUD and as may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR5283 and AR5284. 4. The County will expedite the review of these three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. The existing environmental impact statement ("EIS") does not need to be amended unless the SDPs are revised to increase wetland impact beyond the impact currently permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five(5%)percent. 5. Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential 2 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2347 condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable workforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment. 6. Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, Lodge shall contribute the sum of$3 million to the County to fund Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements. No impact fee credits shall be given for payment of this sum. Lodge recognizes that the County may request additional contributions up to the proposed road impact fees due for 59,0- ellikig;traits to assist the County in funding the � .; construction of the Vanderbilt Dnvei$tidge enhancements to such additional contributions shall be required, however, until tl ...County'provides evidence,that all parties have spent $5,500,000.00 on the Van erbili1Jrhe I ri g en ance=tn Any such sums paid over the initial $3 million shall re4e ve '`gidiirrPact ± e redits ~""Istp ig in this Agreement and Release, however, is intended nor shall it restnct°`ii any.w the County's ability under \\ . applicable laws,ordinances or ru7ess.O reel ertt. 50%)of all transportation impact fees upon approval of the SDPs. These funds"shall be refunded to Lodge should Lodge be permanently prevented from commencing construction based upon actions by any governmental entity or any third party. County shall be entitled to retain these funds without any need for reimbursement upon the earlier of(1) Lodge's commencement of construction of the first tower, or(2) the exhaustion of time to file any third party challenge with respect to any matter concerned by this Agreement and the attachments hereto. 7. Lodge and the County agree that the Cocohatchee Bay PUD shall be exempted from the County's PUD sunsetting provisions within the LDC until the Effective 3 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth(1/5) of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or,golf2olifSe,pss is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reason, then all of the 1'including withont)iin itation the entire golf course ""`""^`15 \ \ development area, except for those t_oits-allowcdt for the,two (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green open space aid be ltm'ttedA ► Eiewe,tnity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the artiended- t D-'Preserve .arcel `Any`'e isions to these restrictive covenants will require a supetnirrity vote of the BOird_Oftostinty Commissioners. f 9. To fully satisfy itsx&li to constr ,sidewalks along adjacent off-site public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway`ten(10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006) in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2349 (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in Building Height, as defined in Paragraph 3.5 entitled "Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the amended PUD,and Footnote 2 thereto. 11. The maximum number of dwelling units to be constructed by Lodge shall not exceed 590 units. Of these,a maximum of 590 units may be multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However,two (2)units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as set forth in Section 4.4 in the amended PUD, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 12. What has been referred.to as jhe R 1:and R-2 Parcels shall be replaced by a single R parcel as set forth in�t1 a re)ised PUD Master PI3,attached to the amended PUD. The development standardstfor the ..Parcel are as:set forth,\in "fable 11 of Paragraph 3.5 of the amended PUD(except las n ay,be cptesslyt m difed*idle Agreement and Release). 13. If there are'additional changes for Batt-Elk-Management Plan required by federal or state agencies,nx3 ft rther County PUVanien iment process shall be required. The County acknowledges that the ended.Bald€agle Management Plan is in compliance with the County regulations. Lodge shall be rexempt from any County regulations that may be adopted in the future applicable to the Bald Eagle and the County shall defer to the state and federal regulatory permitting process relating to the Bald Eagle Management Plan and issues related thereto. Lodge, however, shall be required to notify the County of any such changes required by state or federal agencies, which will then require an administrative change by the County to any of the previously approved SDPs under review or that have been approved by the County. Any change to the construction sequencing shall be considered an insubstantial change to the SDP. 14. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit 2. 5 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2350 15. Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees, insurers, sureties, agents, attorneys, and representatives of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord.No. 2000-88, the related Bald Eagle Management Plan or any amendment or proposed amendment to the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 or the Bald Eagle Management Plan through the date this Agreement and Release are approved and authorized by the Board for the Chairman's signature in-eluding without limitation all Bert Harris Act claims and the claim asserted in Case No. 05-967-CA,.., This release shall be immediately effectiveup on the Count 's aPP` rovai of the 3--SLWs in `accordance with the terms and Y conditions set forth in paragraph 3e athis'Agreetri4ntof 01lease. 16. In the event of a'third party cl alfenge 'ftr is k$reement and Release, the County and Lodge agree tosWork,cooperatively to defendithts Agreement and Release. In this regard, the County and Lodge shall-each..-seek to become parties to any such challenge proceeding if one or the other of them is not named as a party in the first instance. The County and Lodge shall each bear their own costs and attorney's fees in any such proceeding. 17. If any third party challenge to this Agreement and Release should ever be successful, after exhaustion of all appeals or other requests for review or reconsideration or federal permit conditions prevent Lodge from being able to develop the project consistent with the amended PUD Master Plan then the County agrees to return all money provided by Lodge under this Agreement and Release upon sixty(60)days written notice from Lodge and to allow Lodge to retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. In addition,if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain 6 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2351 required federal permits for the SDPs as referenced in this document and is therefore unable to build this project(exclusive of any federal permits or approvals for docks), Lodge likewise will be entitled to a refund of all money provided under this Agreement and Release within sixty (60) days of written notice from Lodge and Lodge shall retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. 18. Nothing in this Agreement and Release or the settlement documents shall be construed or interpreted to confer any right to docks or any particular number of docks. 19. The Agreement and Release shall be binding upon Lodge's and the County's predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, present-and former employees, owners, present and former elected or appointed officials, insurers, principal's,and representatives, who shall work together in good faith to accomplish the intent_of this Agreement and Release. 20. This Agreement'and 1pleiase shal , egyve by the laws of the State of i 4 f, t Florida. _ , 21. This Agreemen d Release may be vern'nde .'ionly by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement.;and..Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release. This Agreement and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. 22. The County and Lodge acknowledge that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision that my exist in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party either based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous language or that the language in question was intended to favor one party or the other. 7 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2352 23. The Effective Date of this Agreement and Release shall be the date upon which the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, executes this document. 24. The County and Lodge acknowledge and assume the risk that additional, different or contrary facts to the facts which they believe exist may now exist or may be discovered after this Agreement and Release has been entered into, and they agree that any such additional, different or contrary facts shall in no way limit, waive, affect or alter this Agreement and Release. The County affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the.pra}eci as authorized by the PUD and this Agreement and Release or the enforceability/ is Agreement and Release_ Lodge affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts lhat.rwOuld'°prohibit the=,construction of the project as " th' t 1 �.r or the enforceability of this authorized by the PUD and,zhi iii .' ' m Agreement and Release. Y . =`F \ Vii,, ,I f 25. In the event of ,breach of this Agr edniezit'at ,Release, either party to this Agreement and Release may enforee its-terms.in the,Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County,Florida. In this respect, the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REMAINING SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 8 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST:;: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGIfr E,CROCK,CLERK COLLIER CO TY, F ORIDA ii i • By: ,.. AI�r"~� BY: — SII vgakilll A = 'w e Q Ch$ ; . .uty lerk TOM ENNING,CHAIRM' I signature cal li '`, WI 1SES; / 141 .. k / � Signed Name "V(C•itiV046 7: I;e'ae,eriW ck Print°• Name / i eXe..,,,...,...,,..1/4 ....AAA, .4-_ • A ' ' Si;• 1• Name ,,..- , , .QDGE:� BOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC ja2/inn 0 (7. %d//‘: --- ITS: lAkorkw-tc Printed Name 1 Ap. ovei11 o form il and e! it - ( C 0%'\.:7 :\ -...4, i 1,,..:),/1 Je ' A. K1 T ow ' E 49 Cou y Atto I y 1-,---------:---,- ,/, 9 2/28/08 revision Building Separation LDC Separation Distance Based on Height. BH x r i Minimum Distance Between Buildings LDC Table 2. Building Dimensions Standards BH=Building Height ( BH + BH ) * 0.5 = BH hdaziasia Bldg Heightl 20 wanes*en ttnattirn rrt 53 i Neigh*of 200 feet *2 t Dlstamee Betimes Principal&Iraci+eres I 0.5 SUFI •3 t 1111 not leu that 15 feet J thew As hila. d .r.) I�` 1800 5F '; 1 1200 SF t,,,..,,i, I r, 4 .. \... `, ,.'N,L---- ___ . 3_, 4 fill; (Beiltling ).&Wm&be$tI Stell be the vertical disci=tnessumd from the first luhitable finished floor cievatian to the epperinost finished cellos elevation cf the strKRacr, mut csain of Baddm Heigt*)c Cashioed kriabt of nw adjacent hr keinpa for the purposes of itetcnisitting ashlar&fir. ``. All distances are in deer rakes settetwise noted. - t •I Fat yam shall be raeaswed as follows: A_ U the parsd k served by a public right.of•wiy,setback is measured Nisi the edjaoent°slit-ofway line. B. If the penal k served by a Mom talcs,setback is measured from the hack d nub(if embed)or edge of prvMtuR(it Mt etittad). BrutAirg height for the meth propetty her I4pceni to Arbor Mow est the"Rl"tract shell bei s unties far a raruiimnum hest of 350 Inst. *3 Whom buildings with a=ounce nrettiosoutal doom alesbswad Ofonkt franc one ar,other...d wails en ace penileto one aaottbet,the sesbodes tea be sdlmitsttuadve1y reduced. J Distance Between Principal Structures dolpillik Distance Between Principal Structures Reduced Reduced Distance Between Principal Structures Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced. "It has been staff's interpretation for decades that the reduction in building separation can be reduced from 200 feet and that reduction is not limited." Executive Summary page 4 of 8 "During the CCPC hearings, when asked how much of a reduction could be administratively approved with the existing language of footnote 3, planning staff replied, "..the basic question is, is the reduction in setbacks or separation of structures limited by the PUD document?And the answer is no, the separation is unlimited. I can't see any grounds in there for intent to reduce it a certain amount, or it would have been specified...There simply is nothing that limits the amount of reduction." (Page 55 of CCPC January 11, 2008 Public Hearing, Attachment "E"). " Executive Summary page 4 of 8 The table below identifies the present and historical application of the building setback reduction. Summary of Common Architectural Theme(CAT)Building Separation Setback Reductions Development Setback Required Setback Approved(utilizing Percent Reduction CAT) Water Park Place @ Pelican (1/2 Bldg Height) 100 feet 25 feet 75% Bay Sand Pointe @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Isle Verde @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Villa Cantana @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Vizcaya @ Pelican Bay 20 feet 10 feet 50% Bouganillas Condo @ Lago Front:35 feet Side:25'Rear:35 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 42%40%57%60% Verde feet Bldg Sep:25' Cordoba @ Lely Resort Front:20 feet Side: 10 feet Bldg 6.4 feet 3.1 feet 5.3 feet 68%69%47% Sep: 10 feet Kalea Bay @ Cocohatchee (1/2 the sum of Bldg 100 feet 50% Bay PUD Heights) 200 feet Executive Summary page 6 of 8 Correctior 7; Location of bldos. Status: Forward Dote Status Changed: 12, :6,.:1C1E Commons: Please vovide *e location ars arraroerienl of eat procrosed buildinus (invoding exis:ing buildings that are to rerriri . 5.11J ru 2 showc e skewed rrore, sc as to no: aooear to be parallel with ELi :f IL is b remain ahgrec zscilding 1, ther t n meet tic setback stel.1 sliec ir the -LI: M ?ItiitIr r . N .,gip 'low lig ap . . - Building Width Kalea Bay Comparison between the Settlement SDP and 2nd Phase SDP Building Widths and Building Separations Settlement SDP 2nd Phase SDP variance Building 1 width 260 310 50 separation 153 109 -44 Building 2 width 260 310 50 separation 126 165 39 Building 3 width 260 310 50 separation 127 100 -27 Building 4 width 260 310 50 separation 341 106 -235 Building 5 width 260 310 50 1,300 747 1,550 480 250 -267 63.5% 36.5% 76.4% 23.6% 19.2% -35.7% 2,047 2,030 • � 9, 4� a # s,i: s,r J a ' O�LF P14146° , ii'P Y x .; r Y , :0 , ��, `� \\r'� l` 1 :e41, Iii 1, ,� v�_(.'a��# t�" r v. Ly_114 ;w# P w "' „'IILL ti `s Iti I, off, , It 4''''7 .' • n . 0 5s . : ,)V-,..:':'ea< .ra \ t ', ;' '' \iitoo -IT 1.‘, , i ::2 4 :.., I , ,,, ` •, .y ,f: ..tea ::-)\ 11...01/4. ;, - ,,. ( V I fil''r''':.1'.'. 4:'.•.•:•411•.•: ':•:•.',:'.::::,:.V..,ii;:?;...;',.ii.. ...,.....4%.,1: , e /.. - -; ',),--;_-_, .-,...::' \, il,,, 0. ., ) , ,,.. , , , ., , yr...5 a 4'7'4 :"{ • • ,( t •' . 4 'ur,rtG / 1 " ` — " ''., Settlement gib. , I h � 7, —J- ¢ (Ir - -� u !.*� . 3x4 _ ..... .-,-.01.:7-..""( „..,Tt,n' " *-- ---*-1''''..r4 .:E'' ��h • .e "t ,K ` f a ` f 1 1 =j ., — }11. "MI z s �i• h 41 diori 1 ....-' ,. - - - r • is + \'V r U �,: t Current Building Height Maximum Building Height Maximum Building Height =20 stories for a maximum height of 200 feet BH: (Building Height): Building height shalt be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure. Only used for Front Yard,Side Yard and Rear Yard. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION ZDNL` G&LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 2004-05 DATE:November 10,2004 LDC SECTION:1.09.02(Definitions:Building,zoned height of) SUBJECT:Exemptions from Building Height Limitations INITIATED BY:Zoning Department Staff BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATIONS: The following language is contained within the definition of zoned building height referred to above:"Rooftop recreational space and accessory facilities are also exempted from the limitations established for measuring the height of buildings." The Code does not further define"recreational space and accessory facilities,"and a request for clarification of this language,with regard to the intent of the Code,has been received. DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): It is my determination that the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased building height,and refers to unenclosed,unroofed,and unairconditioned space for recreational use. This would include such uses as tennis courts,sun decks,running tracks,gym and exercise equipment,and swimming pools or spas which are not raised above rooftop level. The reference to accessory facilities would consist of those exceptions to height limitation identified in LDC Section 4.02.O1.D.1 as infrastructure in support of the building,including structures which do not consist of air-conditioned, habitable space, such as those used to house equipment (pumps, condensers,generators,elevators,etc.). AUTHOR Ross Gochenaur (for Susan Murray, AICP,Director, Department of 2onumg Sr Land Development Review) cc:Project planners Michael R.Fernandez,AICP,President,PDI Florida Building Code Definitions HABITABLE SPACE. A space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, screen enclosures, sunroom Categories I, II and III as defined in the AAMA/NPEA/NSA 2100, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces OCCUPIABLE SPACE. A room or enclosed space designed for human occupancy in which individuals congregate for amusement, educational or similar purposes or in which occupants are engaged at labor, and which is equipped with means of egress and light and ventilation facilities meeting the requirements of this code. Settlement Agreement #19 ll present and former elected or appointed officials, shall work together in good faith to accomplish the intent of this Agreement and Release." END Appellants Filing Administrative Appeal Type Ill Decision LDC Section 10.04.04 1. Diane Rupnow; 14555 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 2. Judith S. Palay; 14648 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 3. Frank Halas; 2531 Golfside Drive; Naples, FL 34110 4. Diane Halas; 2531 Golfside Drive; Naples, FL 34110 5. Diane D.Allen; 14806 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 6. Bruce Q.Allen 14806 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 7. William J. Bryzgalski; 14746 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 8. Phoebe B. Bryzgalski; 14746 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 9. Margaret T. Manna; 15498 Cedarwood Lane#202; Naples, FL 34110 10. Ferdinand J. Manna; 15498 Cedarwood Lane#202; Naples, FL 34110 11. Charlene Fisher; 14660 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 12.John Schaffer; 14660 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 13. Patrick Carey; 14611 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 14. Harold Linnerud; 17 Bluegill Avenue; Naples, FL 34108 15. August Larson; 425 Cove Tower Dr.# 1002; Naples, FL 34010 16. Hilda Glazer; 857 Carrick Bend Circle#203; Naples, FL 34110 17. Emily Kearns; 14722 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 18. Chris Kearns; 14722 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 19. Asimina Ginis; 14616 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 20. Barbara Schiffer; 15495 Cedarwood Lane,Apt. 105; Naples, FL 34110 21. Laurence A. Defuge; 15495 Cedarwood Lane, Apt 305; Naples, FL 34110 22. Ruth A. Defuge; 15495 Cedarwood Lane, Apt. 305; Naples, FL 34110 23. Charlene Raymond; 14652 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 24. Stephen Raymond; 14652 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 25.John C. Fox; 15161 Cedarwood Lane#1603; Naples, FL 34110 26. Gretchen K. Fox; 15161 Cedarwood Lane#1603; Naples, FL 34110 27. Arnold Hulzebosch; 14785 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 28. Anita Hulzebosch; 14785 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 29. Aric Rudden; 14542 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 30. Susan Leach Snyder; 17 Bluebill Ave.Apt. 803; Naples, FL 34108 31.James Floyd Snyder; 17 Bluebill Ave. Apt. 803; Naples, FL 34108 32. Patricia A. Clemente; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 205; Naples, FL 34110 33. Paul Clemente Jr.; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 205; Naples, FL 34110 34. Cheryl A. Wiecek; 14680 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 35. Marilyn Ann Stendahl; 14813 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 36. Carl Peter John Stendahl II; 14813 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 37. Mary Anne Lostaunau; 14742 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 38. Katherine Updegrove; 15505 Cedarwood Lane, Unit 101; Naples, FL 34110 39. William Noyes; 14576 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 40. Geraldine Noyes; 14576 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 41. Dennis Scharf; 14644 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 42. Donna Scharf; 14644 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 43. Edward Schiffer; 15495 Cedarwood LN APT 105; Naples, FL 34110 44. Nancy Rene Barton; 14581 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 45. Bill Larson; 425 Cove Tower Dr.# 1002; Naples, FL 34110 46. Nancy Straus; 14592 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 47.Jerry Straus; 14592 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 48. Brenda Sperry; 14595 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 49. Stephanie Fleetman; 14636 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 50.John Robert Tozer; 14581 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 51.Jim Wydick; 14591 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 52. Sandy Green; 14591 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 53. Louis R. DePrisco; 9-501 Arbor Lake Drive; Naples, FL 34110 54. Kathleen Gallagher; 849 Carrick Bend Circle#201; Naples, FL 34110 55.Tom Duncan; 14620 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 56. Anna Duncan; 14620 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 57. Arthur S. Baldadian; 425 Dockside Drive, Unit 901; Naples, FL 34110 58. Stephen Nichols; 14734 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 59. Mary Nichols; 14734 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 60. Kimberly Campbell; 14801 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 61. Walter Waselovich; 14801 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 62.Jerry Mansbach; 14615 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 63. Shirley Halpern; 14615 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 64. Gilbert Banker; 14624 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 65. Dr. Karen Wasko; 14538 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 66. Laraine Deutsch; 15525 Cedarwood Lane#102; Naples, FL 34110 67. Richard T. Peebles; 14551 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 68. Douglas R. Bloom; 14551 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 69. Elizabeth T. Cressy; 14664 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 70. David A. Cressy; 14664 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 71.John H. Rupnow; 14555 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 72. Steven Picheny; 8231 Bay Colony Drive, Apt 404; Naples, FL 34108 73. Joe Wood; 669 Mainsail PI.; Naples, FL 34110 74.Judith K. Cooper; 14534 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 75. Gail K. Frazee; 858 Carrick Bend Circle# 101; Naples, FL 34110 76.James D. Shaw; 841 Carrick Bend Circle Unit 201; Naples, FL 34110 77. Katherine P. Shaw; 841 Carrick Bend Circle Unit 201; Naples, FL 34110 78. Nanlee K. Hall; 866 Carrick Bend Circle# 103; Naples, FL 34110 79. Diane M. Mascianica; 14516 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 80. Francis S. Mascianica,Jr.; 14516 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 81. Robert LaForgia 14676 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 82. Alan Massey; 5615 Sherborn Drive; Naples, FL 34110 83. Patricia Massey; 5615 Sherborn Drive; Naples, FL 34110 84. Ellen Wright; 14688 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 85.Josephine Dingier; 1001 Arbor Lake Drive# 106; Naples, FL 86. Richard Dingier; 1001 Arbor Lake Drive# 106; Naples, FL 34110 87.Joni Gonnelly; 15495 Cedarwood Lane; Naples, FL 34110 88.Joe Gonnelly; 15495 Cedarwood Lane; Naples, FL 34110 89. Margaret K. Ross; 14520 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 90. Patsy A.Abbett; 14512 Satin Leaf Lane; Naples, FL 34110 91. Dinah Rosenthal; 14566 Juniper Point Lane; Naples, FL 34110 92. Doug Fee: 754 Pan Am Avenue; Naples, FL 34110 93.Thomas A. Lynch; 14710 Glen Eden Drive; Naples, FL 34110 May 31, 2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A.4. This item requires that ex parte disclosi be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Arthrex Boulevard, Application Number PL20170001077. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE I 'Meetings ( 'Correspondence I le-mails I 1Calls Ex parte Items - Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A.5. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes Phase 1 A, Application Number PL20170001378. M NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE IMeetings I 'Correspondence fle-mails I 'Calls