The URL can be used to link to this page

Ex-parte - Saunders 07/11/2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Burt Saunders COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Board of Zoning Appeals 8.A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Judith S. Palay and 92 other property owners within the Cocohatchee Bay Neighborhood Communities,filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the administrative approval of building separations, building widths, building dwelling units, and building heights in the Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA-PL20160002242 for Kalea Bay aka Kinsale Condominium Phases Il-VI. The subject property is located at the northwest and northeast corners of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South and Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170002165] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails ❑Calls Meetings: Diane Rupnow, Diane Ebert, Karen Bishop Correspondence & Emails: Numerous letters and emails from residents and construction trade groups Advertised Public Hearings 9.A. ***This item has been continued from the June 27, 2017 BCC meeting.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended, the Wolf Creek RPUD, to approve an insubstantial change to the PUD, to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only, and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 189± acres. [PDI-PL20160000404] (Mike Bosi, Director, Zoning Division) NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls Meetings: Terri Abrams, Steve Bracci, Bruce Anderson Correspondence & Emails: Numerous emails from attorneys representing project development clients and residents of Black Bear Ridge LykinsDave From: William Becraft <wbecraft@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:27 AM To: FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; BillMcDanial@colliergov.net Cc: William Becraft; Marc Johnson;jeff barkley-beachwalk;Jon Christensen; Tom Glennon; Jim McComb; Richardson, George ;Topper Woelfer Subject: One Naples & Kalea Bay Dear Commissioners, As a resident of the Beachwalk community, I must express my displeasure with the proposed development of One Naples and to the changes considered for Kalea Bay. A 20 story condo tower and three 6 story condos with 300 units are too much for the Vanderbilt Beach area. All the near by 20 story buildings are in the Pelican Bay development, please be strong enough to limit buildings north of Vanderbilt Beach Rd to a more reasonable height, similar to the Turtle club, etc. The increased traffic will be a nightmare and have you ever tried to find a spot on the beach, so let's not add another 600+ people. Kalea Bay should have never been allowed to build 5 hi rises in the first place, so please make them conform to the original plan and not allow them to make their buildings wider or taller. Isn't it interesting that the meetings for One Naples happen in the middle of May, after most seasonal residents have left for the summer. I am writing this because my wife and I fly north this afternoon and we will be unable to attend the meeting this evening. I am asking that you do not approve any condo over 6-7 stories and that the total number of units for the One Naples development be limited to 100-150. With Appreciation, Bill Becraft 564 Beachwalk Circle Naples, Fl 34108 1 LykinsDave From: thomas moore <mooredoctom@me.com> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 12:37 PM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; Fiala Donna Cc: SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny Subject: Ritz and Stock Developmenr Gentlemen: As a 20 year resident of Naples, I am writing to you concerning my alarm over the proposed developments at the Rita Carlton and Vanderbilt beach. I have seen and reviewed in detail these proposals. I believe that they are not in the best interests of the citizens of Naples and SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. I was attracted to move to Naples because it was so different from other Florida communities.There was not the crowding and congestion and lack of green space that is particularly noticeable along the East Coast of the state. In recent years however there is increased traffic and congestion in the area. In particular Vanderbilt Beach Road is backed up in traffic from the beach to Tamiami Trail. This road could not handle any increase in traffic that would be created by these projects. Local residents would have trouble getting in and out of their homes. Vanderbilt Beach Road and this beach is the most popular for individuals who do not have homes on the shoreline. These projects will particularly handicap these individuals from access to the beach. There has been a great outcry of protest from my neighbors in Pelican Bay and Vanderbilt Beach area regarding these projects. We ask that you deny these requests. Thomas S Moore MD 8665 Bay Colony Drive,#1403 Naples, FI, 34108 1 LykinsDave From: Stavropoulos Linda <ilindastav@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 9:00 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Staock and HOST development proposals... Please give serious consideration to the Stock Development and HOST proposals in the Vanderbilt Beach area.The beach in that area is over capacity at this time. The traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Drive is at its limit. Add the proposed development projects and the area will be at its breaking point. Thank you for thinking of my concerns in making your decision. Linda Stavropoulos 8665 Bay Colony Drive,#803 1 LykinsDave From: schultw@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 10:15 AM To: FialaDonna; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy Cc: npaa4u@gmail.com; mstra5050@gmail.com Subject: One Naples proposal Dear County Commissioners: As a 15 year resident of the Vanderbilt Beach community, I have observed numerous changes to our North Naples community during that time. The current proposal called One Naples as put forth by Stock Development deserves some consideration. I understand that progress and improvements can be positive. However, let me start off with an overriding concern I have with the proposal... density. 300 units? YIKES !! You folks quibbled over the Beachbox possibly using some parking spots and causing traffic issues. What do you think 300 condos are going to bring to the area? A 21 story high rise does not even come close to fitting in with the surrounding area. It would be in imposition, like a prison watch tower, cowering over the beach and the existing complexes. A high rise should be a non-starter for this One Naples project. Stock touts the 19 story Tierste (a 1/2 miles off the beach with the building surrounded by mangroves) and the 14 story Ritz Carlton (which has set backs of its own property all around) as examples of why their 21 story "fits." HOGWASH !! Two to five story structures is what the neighbors have....and that is what should be built. Three 5 story buildings on the lagoon? Has anyone looked how tight that would be? 5 stories is a maybe; I would prefer to see 3 story buildings and only 2 of them with green space between the buildings and the neighbors. Can we please still at least see some water?We don't need or want to be walled off from some of the natural ambience of our neighborhood. Adjacent to these proposed 5 story buildings is a 75 slip marina....Stock's own pictures only show 34 slips and that looks tight. Besides downsizing the marina to a reasonable size (20-25?), FREE PUBLIC ACCESS should be part of the County's negotiations with Stock. Why not require them to provide and maintain a kayak/canoe launch within this marina for all County residents? While on the subject of negotiations, why privatize the roads of Southbay, Gulfshore Court and Center Street?These currently serve to provide a neighborhood feel to the area and lets one escape from the high traffic Gulfshore Blvd. and Vanderbilt Beach Rd, whether it be on foot, bike or vehicle. (did I mention density?). How about traffic? This 3 little neighborhood roads provide relief from the 2 main drags for many"locals." The roads should be kept public property. If the County doesn't want to care for the roads, let Stock care for them with a public easement for all to use. Thank you for your help in 'right' sizing this project and keeping it within the realm of what the community and taxpayers (and voters) desire. Sincerely, Willie Schult e-mail: schultw(a.aol.com a resident of Beachwalk 1 LykinsDave From: Neil Wise <neilwise@camden.rutgers.edu> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 5:35 PM To: SaundersBurt; FialaDonna;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: solis@colliergov.net Subject: Fw: Proposed development Commissioners, Below is a letter I sent to Commissioner Solis (and he has replied), but it should be known by all of you: I own two condominiums in Beachwalk, and I agree with the position of NPAA opposing the proposed development of the N.E. corner of Vanderbilt Beach Rd. and Gulf Shore. This has become an extremely congested area the last few years, and the proposal would significantly exacerbate the problem. The beach is over-crowded, the traffic is too heavy, and it's becoming more dangerous for the many pedestrians and bicyclists. nw Neil Wise Adjunct Professor Career Counselor Rutgers Law School Camden, New Jersey 08102-1203 856-225-6508 ofc 856-397-3100 cell 1 LykinsDave From: Maureen Straight <mstra5050@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 5:23 PM To: SolisAndy; DannaFiala@colliergov.net; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt;Jane Myers; Sal Privitera;fran muffin; Bob Chapman; info@onenaplesliving.com Subject: Stock Development Vanderbilt Beach Proposal Attachments: VanderbiltBeach_CommSolis.docx Hello Attached please find our letter of concerns regarding the proposed Stock Development builds. Feel free to pass it to all who may have interest or concerns. We would anticipate a reply from the commissioners Maureen and Gene Straight 1 May 22, 2017 This is an open letter to our Commissioner Solis and the Board of Collier County Commissioners As residents of Naples Park and your constituents, we are writing to express our concern about the proposed Stock Development "One Naples" project. We support the Naples Park Area Association concerns voiced by our President in a letter to you last week. We attended the public meeting and spoke to Brian Stock and his representatives expressing our concerns about the environmental impact on Vanderbilt beach and Wiggin's state park as well as the Vanderbilt Lagoon. We are particularly concerned about the impact of the increase in automobile, walking, and bicycle and motorcycle traffic on the safety of an area that is the single access point to Vanderbilt beach. The response included how much research, time and money has gone into the development, over the past two years. We were shocked that there was so much activity around acquiring all of the property needed and no previous mention to any of the residents of its future use until now. The Naples News reported that 4500 invitations were sent out to the residents. No invitation was received in our home or in any of our neighbors. Had the Naples News not reported the meeting we would have missed this early information. A variance will be needed to change the use from commercial to residential, a variance to approve the number of docks at the proposed marina and a variance to approve the massive height of the tower building. The need for variance implies that there is a proposed change in the character of the properties in the zone. We are opposed to changing the character of our neighborhood. Many representatives we spoke to from Stock indicated that state and federal approval had already been obtained and the last step in the process was the application to Collier County. We request notice of any public meetings held for input from about this proposal before the filing and the date of the filing of the application and subsequent hearing by the commission. I am asking that you expedite the dissemination that information to all of the residence of your area including those constituents gone north as season has ended. We would appreciate you investigating how this project meets any of the codes for: a high velocity hurricane zone, high wind speed zone, flood plain zone, costal water and environmental impact of number of boats (75 are proposed) in the lagoon. In addition, what will be the impact of a minimum of 300 people and 600 cars on sewage, wastewater flow and air pollution on the area. I would also like to know where to find the traffic study for this project. To my knowledge, there is no Collier County code for beach density, the actual numbers of bodies on the beach. However, anyone who uses Vanderbilt beach knows that the addition of 300-600+ bodies on the beach will not make for any improvement in the character of the neighborhood. During Season the access to Vanderbilt beach is quite challenging. The parking fills early in the morning, the police are required to direct traffic at the corner of Vanderbilt beach and gulf shore for pedestrian and auto safety and the left over traffic is backed up to Vanderbilt drive and some days to 41. The spillover of beachgoers to Wiggin's State Park will not afford much relief, as the major issue there is the limited parking, which closes access at 10 am during season. Then there is the issue of the proprietary tide line ownership of the many hotels and condominiums on the beach. As more beach goers use the county, access points between Vanderbilt and Wiggins the conflict between owners and beach goers will escalate. The addition of this density of humans on this small corner of collier is not prudent for any humans, neighborhoods, traffic, biking and the blue zone status. One of the last questions we asked at the meeting was what community improvement projects had Stock Development considered as part of this massive project that will influence this area? Perhaps they would pay for a signal at the corner of Vanderbilt beach road and gulf shore, or to pay for the dredging sand to be brought to the beach to improve the communities and their prospective clients' environment. There was no such consideration. The community commitment from Pelican Bay is evident in the community parks and green spaces we all enjoy. We are currently undergoing multiple constructions projects to improve our neighborhood potable water, sewage, wastewater removal and power upgrades. We are also impacted by the closure of Vanderbilt drive to the north. We are willing to weather these, as they are truly improvements to our quality of life. The addition of the proposed Stock One Naples project will not be an improvement. We know your attention as ours is focused on maintaining and preserving the character, beauty and livability of our neighborhood and we are counting on you and your fellow commissioners to support our neighborhood's livability We appreciate your attention and response Gene and Maureen Straight 562 100th Ave. North. Naples, Florida, 34108 genestraightl@gmail.com / 239.593.1106 LykinsDave From: kkevwi@aol.com Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 10:11 AM To: FialaDonna; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt Subject: Fwd: Proposed Stock Development at intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Rd & Gulfshore I'd also like to include each of you on this Email also... Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: kkevwi@aol.com Date: May 30, 2017 at 4:29:22 PM EDT To: AndySolis@colliergov.net Cc: npaa4u@gmail.com Subject: Proposed Stock Development at intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Rd & Gulfshore Andy, I am also a homeowner in Naples Park, drawn there by its central location to so many conveniences. Best of all, we have such an easy and SAFE access to our beautiful Vanderbilt Beach. It only take a holiday weekend like yesterday's Memorial Day, to remind us of just how snarled conditions become with the additional people. Cars attempting to get to the Beach parking garage were backed up in both directions, with police directing traffic. (And, of course,the nearby Wiggins State Park was full by 10 AM.) With the additional pedestrians and bicyclists also, it becomes unsafe for everyone. I can't imagine adding the congestion of another 300 residences in an oversized monstrosity on that corner. Neither Vanderbilt Beach Road nor Gulfshore Blvd N were built to accommodate that volume. Please keep in mind that Vanderbilt Beach is a PUBLIC Beach and should be accessible to anyone, not just a privileged minority. This Email can be added to the 'NO' pile growing on your desk. Sincerely, Kristie Kevern 796 108th Ave N Naples, FL. 34108 Sent from my iPad 1 LykinsDave From: Ira Rubenstein <irar@me.com> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 3:48 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Development Dear Commissioner, We are full time residents at 445 Cove Tower Dr in Wiggins Bay Community and are very concerned about the continuing development and what seems like runaway growth in our community. The volume of traffic pressures on our infrastructure and yes, the view on the waterfront will be severely affected by the building of the towers known as Kalea Bay along Vanderbilt Drive. I urge you to vote against any changes in the approved plans for these towers that would increase the size of these structures and allow them to be closer to each other. Thank you for your consideration. Ira S. Rubenstein 445 Cove Tower Dr Apt 903 Naples FL 34110 239-597-3141 845-341-3099 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 LykinsDave From: Charles Freeman <freemct@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 8:33 AM To: SolisAndy; McDanielBill; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny Dear Sirs: I have been a winter resident of Naples since 1997. I reside at The Remington, in Bay Colony and Pelican Bay. Please add my voice to the legion of us in North Naples who oppose two projects:the proposed One Naples development at the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulfshore Drive, and the rumored condominium tower by Host Hotels and Resorts at the Naples Beach Ritz hotel.The impact of both projects on the already problematic traffic situation on VBR and the already congested Vanderbilt Beach would be ruinous. More broadly, I would ask that the five of you come up with a Naples-wide master plan for the further development of our community. Those of us who chose to reside in Naples chose this coast of South Florida because of the horrendous traffic, lack of green space, and overbuilding on the East Coast. I am very concerned that Naples will wind up like Miami. I see too many big buildings going into small spaces, e.g. the two projects above. Please hire a top consultant to come up with a master plan for Naples. As a taxpayer,that is one bill I would happy to see the county footing. Respectfully, Chuck Freeman RECEIVED JUN 0 9 2017 OFFICES OF COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DiStria 1 -------- District 2 District 3r......_.._._ Letters District a Dietriat!3,� - Not good for Vanderbilt Beach Regarding the story headlined"High-rise condos near Vanderbilt Beach in North Naples propmeosed," ting was while the gesture to hold a"community „Therg were admirable,this was not a"public hearing. no formal presentations,but instead a series of tables to speak with contractors of the developer. The most egregious statements were around traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road based on a theoretical traffic study which concludes there is still plenty of room ved with for more traffic.Clearly none of the people this project live in Vanderbilt Beach during season, holidays and sunset every day.There were no Collier Coun ,which would have b beneficial to hear community officials at the feedback on planned een rezoning proposals. The developer states there are three other high-rises in the immediate area with which it fits in:The Ritz- Carlton and two others in Bay Colony with private roads.The Stock PR people are really trying spin this and their statements don't even match up to the devel- oper's models or multiple drawings. Traffic congestion,environmental disruption on Vanderbilt Lagoon,construction noise,dirt and safety issues for pedestrians and beachgoers:How can this overstuffed turkey and permanent traffic nightmare be good for Vanderbilt Beach? Cathy O'Brien,Naples F c, 0cC- C U _ 'g . 1 - alloOtr"Vtgq,,4•7/,,,,,.„ ,.. Ai AA&hii - -'':':',1:67(.;t::,"'1'-',',':*':('',..:",'.-,•:,,,,,, ,,,r,,A,',V-=','„`-,- .; t-,'''lly(1 • .... ..... ( ......_ _-.1.:-7::-7„-,R4.-,%- :,.. ... .... Lb '----. ....... = . ---4. \I) ... .... , . .. i -1 • C3 4 ....) (t's .......,. ..... ... ....... ......,, .... V ........ ...... ......_ ..,., . ......... • R.r .I.—I'' ...—.., _., P1 '''''••••• --.. —.... .--. ........ .... 1 . ...1 4 I - 0 ........ ...... ...., ..... tx, A ...... ,-......„ .....--- ..... .°:. r---..., •., •••••• li" ' '' ...•••••• 44. . ..= C.-) .....-.-. ......._ ••• .... ......... .... t." .4:4 . "...... =Z.. . . SKI •••••......., C'f) ... • N•\ (I) ......... a) , 0 I --. .......„ 1.ti .•-C) 1 CI CZ 0 r\) f,) J- -. -......_. .,...) .A.- ,' . . * '-... .e... . 1 , . . . . 1 1 . -. - _. - ..-.• v-:-..!....„„ „„, . .\_______ • .. .,, ... f f LykinsDave From: Gregory.Bennett@Ferguson.com Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:23 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Collier county team, My name is Greg Bennett and I work at Ferguson Enterprises. I have been a part of the Kalea project for the past 5 years. I mainly work on multifamily and have got to spend time in high rises both on our side and the other coast. There is nothing that represents Naples better than Kalea Bay. The project is unlike anything else in the state. It's a high level project, that has the quality and look that all of our northern friends are seeking. Many of the clients are also local Naples people looking for a second home. I know many of the buyers and can't explain their excitement to move in. These are people coming for weeks at a time. From a personal level, the stoppage of work would have a major effect on the economy and my family. My company alone has forecasted this work and planned accordingly. Many people have been hired and trained to service this job as we should. We have based things on feedback from sales. I am Estero residence who has a huge desire to move to Naples. I work in Naples, go to church at North Naples and mainly dine down south. My wife asks me every day when we can move. Projects like Kalea keep our dreams alive of being able to make the move down. We are younger(35 years old)with 3 kids. Naples schools for high school is what we want. I can't explain how many estero/fort myers friends of mine have the same dream to get down. Projects like Kalea provide the income to achieve this. Yes there are over 300 people on the project but there are a ton more behind the scenes. From the distributers to the designers, we would all be hurt from any stoppage. We are the people who are here year round spending money while others are gone. We are the future leaders of our community. Nothing represents Naples better than Kalea bay. Thanks for your time, Gregory Bennett Builder Sales Ferguson,a Wolseley Company 38 Goodlette-Frank Rd, Naples Fl 34102 USA 0:239-963-0080 C: 239-872-2713 gregory.bennett@ferguson.com 1 LykinsDave From: Nancy Farnsworth <tennis.nut@mindspring.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:37 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Hearing Dear County Commissioners, As a native Neapolitan, I have seen our county go through many many changes in my 53 years. Some have been very hard to take, yet overall I believe our County has been lead in a good direction with a balanced growth. My livelihood for over 30 years has been in the construction industry. The company I work for made it through the very difficult downturn in the housing/construction market, however only 21 of 192 employees kept their jobs and those who were still employed struggled with significant pay cuts and less working hours. Fortunately, the past couple years it has turned around. My employer is directly impacted by Kalea Bay. There were 25 employees who directly worked on building 1 and 5 others who did Kalea Bay work at the office including myself. If the Kalea Bay building 2 does not proceed, numerous employees, full time residents and your constituents will lose their jobs. Please stand firm against those who oppose this project that has already been approved. Thank you for your service and your consideration in this matter. Nancy Farnsworth 7818 Emerald Circle Naples, FL LykinsDave From: Rene Acres-Hatch <Rene@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:52 AM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Kalea Bay Burt Saunders, I am writing to express my concerns for halting the construction of Kalea Bay 2. I have resided in Naples for over 48 years and have been employed in the construction industry for over 30 years. Tourism is our industry here in Naples and construction is a large part of what keeps Naples growing to accommodate the new corners in our area. Halting the progress of Kalea Bay would have impacts on several areas that should be of concern to ALL Naples residents, not just the few in Glen Eden who might have their view obstructed. Glen Eden should take into consideration that they were entitled to develop their community without opposition from others in the area. Please know the decision that you make concerning this project will set precedence for all future projects and will affect the employment of hundreds of construction workers. I am asking that you please honor your approval of the development of Kalea Bay. Sincerely, Rene' Rene'.acres-3-latch R Acres Plumbing Co LLC 1911 Seward Ave, Suite 3 Naples, FL. 34109 PH: 239-598-0800 FX: 239-597-1590 Rene@acresplumbing.com -fii ❑!' 1❑ ACRES ` rrj,�_ �iUMBING ''.�`- t' 7 it 0 '' d. 24 HOUR EMERGENCY SERVICE Website Like us on Facebook 1 LykinsDave From: Ron Bowling <ron@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:23 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Dear Collier County Commissioners, I wanted to send my personal concerns in reference to possible delays in the construction of the next building at the Kalea Bay project. I work for a plumbing company that is currently working on the Kalea Bay project.With the planned start of building#2 we are able to keep our staffing working anticipating the next building to start. If it does not, there will be layoffs due to lack of work. I personally have struggled as many others for the last 8 to 9 years trying to survive the hardships in the most drastic down turn in construction this area has seen. It was a long, slow recovery and we are just now becoming hopeful in our futures in the construction trade and regaining some ground. I am very sensitive in concern with growth and over-development and believe our local government has found a balance for everyone in my personal experience of living here for over 40 years. I was fond of the Wiggins Pass area in the 70's when there was little more than a Marina and some small developments.That is not the case these days and much of that area is built on and believe the very people complaining reside in the adjacent areas probably have not been here for very many years. Nor do they likely reside here year round or earn a living here. Kalea Bay has already been approved and site developed for the future construction of these buildings.The potential opportunities for our working residents and the revenue to local business will be felt county wide and will effect hundreds upon hundreds of the collier working class and business owner residents. Please represent us in allowing this building to proceed as planned. Our livelihoods are counting on you. Sincerely, Ron Bowling Acres&Son Plumbing Inc. 5701 Houchin St Suite#1 Naples, Fl 34109 Office 239-597-5031 Fax 239-597-3740 ron@acresplumbing.com www.acresplumbing.com LykinsDave From: Charlie Bauman <Charlie@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:47 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Ron Bowling; Nancy Farnsworth Subject: Kalea Bay Building #2 Dear Collier County Commissioners, I am currently an employee of Acres and Son Plumbing, Inc. , a Collier County company for some 40 years. I have worked for Acres and Son Plumbing for over 8 of the past 15 years. I personally worked at the Kalea Bay job site full time as an assistant project manager from 04/01/16 until 12/31/16. Presently our staff at Kalea Bay site is only 20%of what it was because Building#2 has not yet started. Acres and Son Plumbing has already been negatively impacted because Building#2 has not started. If building 2 is not constructed, Acres will be even more seriously harmed as will my work with the company. In addition to Acres, many other subcontractors are being negatively affected. Hundreds of construction industry jobs are at risk if Kalea Bay Building#2 and further buildings are not allowed to be constructed. I sincerely ask for your consideration to allow the construction of Building #2 and further buildings at Kalea Bay to proceed. Thank you for your consideration. Kind Regards, Charlie Bauman Acres &Son Plumbing, Inc. 5701 Houchin Street, Suite 1 Naples, FL 34109 239-597-5031 Cell 239-734-0804 Charlie@acresplumbing.com 1 LykinsDave From: Chris.Brasher@Ferguson.com Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:39 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: FW: Kalea Bay Bld #2 To the Collier County Commissioners, I understand that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned citizen who is heavily involved in the construction industry as I work for Ferguson Enterprise which employees 700+associates (quality jobs+ benefits) in Florida in our plumbing division alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be directly affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. Ferguson is very involved in both our communities and by providing quality opportunities, as well as teaching, coaching,training, and furthering developing people's skills. Our industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Chris Brasher Ferguson a Wolseley Company Director of Branch Management- Florida District 10355 S Orange Ave. Orlando,Fl 32824 0: (407)856-5161 M:239-823-0935 Ferguson Online -Always Open! http://www.fergusononline.com 1 LykinsDave From: Jessica Judd <jessicajudd@crsmithllc.com> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:54 AM To: 'BiiiMcDaniel@colliergov.neT; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: Kalea Bay Bld #2 To the Collier County Commissioners, I have just been informed that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned Naples local (over 31 years in Naples and two generations before) who is heavily involved in the construction industry as I work for C.R. Smith which contracts and manages over 50+ subcontractors that employ hundreds of workers in Florida in our contracting alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project.The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank you for your time! Jessica Judd Assistant to Chad Smith/Office Manager lessicajudd@crsmithllc.com P: (239) 596-8003 F: 239.288.0575 1110 C.R. SMITH. LLC GON6''R1.,CTION 1 LykinsDave From: Teale Mueller <tealemueller@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 11:59 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners, My name is Teale Mueller. I am a sales associate and team member that has been instrumental in the day to day sales process of the Kalea Bay Community. I have also been involved in general real estate in Collier County for years. Our team has been involved with so many aspects of representing this wonderful Kalea Bay community and has been immersed in assisting not only our Kalea Bay buyers,but also providing information to and fostering relationships with hundreds of our Collier County full time and seasonal residents who have visited our site.. I am in a position to see the excitement of our future Kalea Bay residents, many who have worked,planned and saved over many years to be in a position to fulfill their dream of living in a community such as Kalea Bay. Another great aspect of being involved in this project is that I have also had the opportunity to see that hundreds of local men and women from many different companies/trades are proudly invested in the employment opportunities a project like Kalea Bay creates. From cleaners, to landscapers, construction workers, designers, material suppliers, cooperating realtors all who have benefited and have been able to provide a better quality of life for themselves and their families. Sometimes our society highlights and amplifies the negative opinions of a few people. This is unfortunate. I believe we all have a responsibility to open our eyes and ears to all of the good and opportunity a project like Kalea Bay presents to so many in our community. Kalea Bay will have such a positive impact in supporting our current and future local economy. There is no doubt that this unique and beautiful community will improve the lives of many for years to come. I thank you for your time and consideration, Teale Mueller Sales Associate Wilson 6,Associates i.io old oast Road Naples, Ft 5-1-11O 23. -795-0110 (0) 1 i-SC (c) TcuaieMu , Lwrit Wilson,,Associates Nafg,41 ivauIc PS' 1t'*'E 1 LykinsDave From: Aris Dougherty <adougherty1530@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:19 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: KALEA BAY 2 Hello, My name is Aris Dougherty, I reside in Collier County and work in the construction industry. My job will be directly affected in a very negative way if Kalea Bay 2 is halted. I don't understand why anyone wants to hold back Naples' growth and economy. Please consider the hundreds of people that will be affected if this project is halted. Thank you very much for your consideration, Aris Dougherty Naples, FL i LykinsDave From: Linda Crowe <lnda.crowe@progressivewaste.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 1:55 PM To: "BilIMcDaniel@colliergov.net'; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt Subject: Kalea Bay Tower#2 Importance: High To Collier County Commissioners, I am very disappointed there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. As an informed resident of Southwest Florida and who is heavily involved in the construction and real estate industry, it's unfortunate to hear of opposition to growth within our community. Not only am a licensed Real Estate Agent, I also am fortunate enough to be employed by Waste Connections, who provides hauling and disposal services on construction sites. Kalea Bay Building#1 has not only provided a significant employment opportunity for construction workers who work and live within our community; but has also benefited Southwest Florida by attracting affluent residents who have purchased condominiums in Tower 1. The benefits this project brings within our community reaches far beyond today. It supports our community for many years down the road by the jobs it creates to operate Kalea Bay and the opportunity it brings for outlying existing businesses as well as future business opportunities. The increase in tax revenue for Collier County should also be an important topic not be overlooked. We want to look for future growth and opportunity in Southwest Florida and opposing the second phase of Kalea Bay does not support our local industry of construction, tourism/snowbirds, and real estate markets. Hundreds of companies and probably an estimated thousand workers would be directly affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. The real estate and construction market has went through some very tough times and to stop the second phase of Kalea Bay would be going backwards. It is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy considering what we have been through. I hope that we can continue to grow as a community and every one of whose who work and live within this community can prosper and enjoy the life Southwest Florida has to offer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Linda Crowe I Territory Manager Waste Connections, Inc. 2289 Bruner Lane, Fort Myers, FL 33912 0: 239-489-1716 I F: 239-489-1652 I C:239-229-5473 Fr r WASTE CONNECTIONS. Cu'tti.t stt':i, Fitrurr 1 LykinsDave From: pureplumbingl4 <pureplumbing14@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:00 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Kalea Bay To the Collier County Commissioners, I have just been informed that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned Naples Resident/Business Owner, whom is heavily involved in the construction industry. I work for C.R. Smith, LLC., which contracts and manages over 50+ subcontractors that employ hundreds of workers in Florida in our contracting alone. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company, but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates. All the outlying businesses that are affected by the construction as well as the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Our company will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years. It is encouraging to see and be part of a positive growing economy. Thank you for your time!" Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone 1 LykinsDave From: scott@amssoundandvision.com Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:28 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Cc: chadrsmith@me.com; marc@amssoundandvision.com; gsrichter@aol.com; jessicajudd@crsmithllc.com Subject: Kalea Bay project To the Collier County Commissioners, I am and have been a Naples resident since 1990. I have seen Naples grow from the small town to a larger town with that small town atmosphere. It is where I enjoy to live and therefore where I set up my family and my business. It pains me to hear that there is opposition to projects, specifically the Kalea Bay project. I understand what it is like to have construction go on next door and although it is a little annoying, it will pass and Naples is better for it. It is promising to our community when homes are built. It creates confidence in community, business, and family life! What better way to increase the value and the operation of our county than welcoming those who are willing to invest in its future! I am an owner of a small company that is involved with the Kalea Bay project. We are a small fish in the pond of contractors working on this project. I cannot speak for them, but we have added staff to our company, invested in advertising, business expansion, and showroom enhancements to provide for the potential 600+families that will call Kalea Bay and Naples, Fl their home. I can only make the assumption that the other companies have made similar investments. It takes a lot of people to build a community and even more to staff the location when it is complete. I would ask that you do not make any changes to these employees source of income or provide more stress for companies in the workforce by delaying the project. Our company and our employees families will be directly affected by the decisions you make. I appreciate your time. If you feel the need to reach out to me about my thoughts on this project,feel free to do so. Best Regards, Scott Moore AMS Sound &Vision Owner 1 "ScottRise andH. rise Moore again and again until lambs become lions' 0 Rims isk L 4 v � Sena Systems Oesicy -AMS sand 8 Wre�rai www- . ,, Helping to transform lives by reducing your waistline and thickening your wallet!What excites you?!Change your dreams into goals! TRUSTWORTHY LOYAL HELPFUL FRIET IDLY COURTEOUS KIND ...--" words to live by :f "�t'Y',o. OBEDIENT CHEERFUL THRIFTY BRAE CLENI REVERENT n ,A _ Scoutmaster-uuV tcop243naplas COM* F ��¢,� Associate Advisor-OA HT Chapter,Osceola Lodge yq ,;-, t J Scoutmaster-Wood Badge S4-88-15-1 iter 40 I 2 1 LykinsDave From: John Wilkinson <John@sunmasterinc.com> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:10 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay To whom it may concern, I am a business owner that employs approx. 50 people Our company is heavily reliant on the construction industry for our living. Projects like Kalea Bay are the lifeblood of our revenue. So when we hear about a project such as Kalea Bay it allows us to more confidently invest in other areas of our economy as consumers. I have lived my whole life (48 years) in Naples so I do understand the idea of pushback against new developments such as this. But typically it doesn't come from natives, it comes from folks that took advantage moving into past developments that some may have been opposed to when they were going in. It makes me shake my head when I think about the "close the door behind me" mentality that happens. As I understand it the Kalea Bay development of 5 condo buildings has already been cleared but there are those who are trying to have it stopped. I sincerely hope you all take into consideration the trickle down effect that will happen if you stop the movement forward of this project.We are a small company but at least 1/3 of my people are currently involved with the workings of this project.Their jobs may not exist without it. When I go to jobsite meetings I see hundreds of people being employed on this site that again would be unemployed if it is shut down.Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please make the right choice for us. Sincerely, John Wilkinson President Sunmaster of Naples 900 Industrial Blvd Naples, FL 34104 239-261-3581 ofc. 239-261-7499 fax. 239-253-4773 cell. www.sunmasterinc.com 1 LykinsDave From: Kevin Jensen <kevin@jensenunderground.com> Sent: Sunday, July 2, 2017 2:19 PM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.neT'; 'PennyTaylor@colliergov.net; 'BurtSaunders@colliergov.net; 'AndySolis@colliergov.net'; 'DonnaFiala@colliergov.net' Subject: Kalea Bay Buildings#2,3,4,5 Dear Collier County Commissioners, I understand that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned business owner who is heavily involved in the Kalea Bay project.This project has been on our books for over a year and in our projection of work for our employees. If this project were to be cancelled it would put a hardship on Jensen Underground Utilities, therefore possibly causing layoffs within our company. We currently employ 95 wonderful people who have families. Not only do we provide a pay check to our employees,we also provide 100% health insurance coverage. Many of the employees purchase health insurance for their families through their hard work a pay checks that they have earned. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. Projects like these help not only our industry, but benefit the overall community for many years with the jobs that it creates and all the outlying businesses that are affected not only by the construction but the livelihoods that are affected by the wages and benefits of those employed by Kalea Bay. Jensen Underground Utilities is very involved in both our communities and by providing quality opportunities, as well as teaching, coaching, training, and furthering developing people's skills. Our industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and a growing economy. Thank You For Your Consideration, Kevin Jensen JENSEN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, INC. 5585 Taylor Rd. Naples, FL 34109 239-597-0060 Ext. 5 239-597-0061—Fax 239-825-1638—Cell Email: Kevin(a@jensenunderground.com Website: www.jensenunderground.com LykinsDave From: Arturo Guido <aguido@legnobastone.com> Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 10:53 AM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay "To the Collier County Commissioners, "To the Collier County Commissioners, It has recently been brought to our attention that there is some opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay. I am a concerned local Naples, Florida businessman who owns and operates a five-generation small business headquartered in Naples, Florida.We are extremely involved in the construction industry as we are a small sub-contractor that works directly for C.R. Smith. We are a boutiques manufacturing company with approximately 50 employees directly linked to the Kalea Bay project. A job like this provides significant opportunity not just to our company but to the many trades that are fortunate enough to participate. The Kalea Bay project is a significant element to our business and crucial to the employees that are directly employed because of the Kalea Bay project. No to mention the monetary impact it will also have on all their families. Our company and our employees will be hugely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. It would be shameful to post pone the progress of this already approved project and negatively impact tens of thousands of families for the sake of a few. Thank you for your time!" Please consider the environment when printing this email.As a company deeply invested in wood,we appreciate your efforts to maintain a world with healthy forests and prudent environmental stewardship.Thank you! Legno Bastone Wide(PlankEfooring "Custom Designed Furniture for'Your Floor" 2684 yforsesfioe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 (0)239-206-1898 oQegrao g3asione WIDE PLANK FLOORING Disclaimer Notice The E-Mail and the information contained in it and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged.If you received this email in error please notify us immediately.You are not authorized to,and must not disclose,copy,distribute or retain this E-Mail or any part of it. We have taken precautions to lower the risk of transmitting software viruses,but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on this message and any attachment to it.Neither Legno Bastone nor the sender can accept liability or responsibility for any damage or any loss whatsoever caused by the transmission of any virus. All statements are made WITHOUT PREJUDICE and all offers are made SUBJECT TO CONTRACT within 45 days of quote. 1 LykinsDave From: Brian Dollard <briandollardrce@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 1:13 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Project To the Collier County Commissioners, It has been brought to my attention there is opposition to the development of the Kalea Bay Project by a few surrounding neighbors. Let me start by saying I am a 41 year Resident of Naples, I have been in the construction business for 38 years. I have seen all the changes from Ft. Myers to Marco Island.The construction industry here is 2nd to none for quality of job and the tradesman that build them. We are a vital part of our communities. From purchasing our own properties and creating commerce with other businesses and industries.Also by creating a better tax base for our State and local Government. I currently employ roughly 50 tradesman for our company. Local men and women who have families to provide and support.The Kalea bay Project is vital to my family and my employees families to live a quality life here in Southwest Florida. In this situation with the opposition opinion, it's a shame that a few who have their dwelling in the this location are opposed to those who would like a dwelling in the same location. (this makes no sense).The Kalea Bay project is the most beautiful thought out resort style community that I have been involved with and the privilege to work on. The construction Industry has been in some tough times as of late,just the past year or so we have been coming out of a serious slow down due to the financial crisis. All the people involved are starting to live a better life and contribute to the community in a more vigor way. If this project was delayed or stopped because of the few who only have their own interest in mind and not the greater good of the community it would be another hardship on the construction industry and the people involved. My company and its employees would certainly feel hardship in their lives. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Best regards to all of you. Brian Brian Dollard briandollardrce@gmail.com RCE Contractors, Inc 3884 Progress Ave Naples, FL 34104 239-643-5758-Office 239-825-1532- Cell 239-643-6772-Fax CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is only for the person(s) named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail. 1 RECEIVED JUL 0 3 2017 To: CcR-114 N,i `�iO�1�72�73 •' I��G�1 �) C OFFICES OF COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS From: Donna Reed Caron Date: July 2, 2017 District 1 District 2 Re: Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and PUD District 3 N District 4 District 5 In a thinly veiled attempt to justify actions antithetical to good planning, staff issued a memorandum dated April 28, 2017 trying to explain the application of development standards for the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. The staff approval letter spends a great deal of time trying to clarify their actions and quoting the "clear language" of Florida Statutes. Critical to the discussion currently being brought forward by citizens is that staff is not following the Settlement Agreement and all of it's component parts in the reviewing process. The following is attempt to detail submitted changes in both clear language and unambiguous facts. Building One is 50 feet wider than shown on the original SDPs. The apparent intent is to make buildings 2-5 each 50 feet wider, thus adding the equivalent of another whole building to the plan and further exacerbating the building separation issue. Clear and unambiguous. The developer has added twelve guest suites as accessory units. However, the PUD lists guest suites and cabanas as permitted uses and they are to be counted as part of the total number of residential units: 590. Four 20 story buildings each with 120 units equals 480 units. One 17 story building adds 102 units. Plus twelve guest suites brings the total unit count to 594. So as of this date, staff appears to be allowing the developer to exceed the maximum number of units allowed. Clear and unambiguous. Plans are in progress to add an additional story to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory roof-top structures such as the pool, community meeting room, and fitness center. According to the PUD, building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the upper most finished ceiling elevation of the roof structure. Also County Land Development Code staff and Zoning & Land Development staff issued an official clarification on the issue of roof-top accessory structures: SC 2004-05, "... the language in question was intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased height, and refers to unenclosed. unroofed, and un-air conditioned space for recreational use." Clear and unambiguous. A housing unit (a habitable structure) has been added to the garage level, conflicting further with the definition of building height as defined in the PUD. Clear and unambiguous. The plans that exist at the County are inconsistent with those submitted to South Florida Water Management - - - preventing any factual analysis to be conducted. For example the SFWMD plans show the addition of two four-plex units, further exceeding the allowed unit count. Nothing clear or unambiguous about this. Building separations are less than code minimums of 1/2 the sum of the building heights, and less than the already reduced and adjusted separations (as per PUD footnote #3) shown on the SDPs attached to the PUD and Settlement Agreement. To quote from the CCPC review that was accepted and approved by Board action, "However, as a result of language in the PUD, the CCPC recommends reference to building separation be removed from the Settlement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDPs reviewed by the CCPC. As an alternative to the reduction in separation, greater distances could be provided by moving alternating towers closer to Vanderbilt Drive." Those separations are as follows: building 1 to 2, 153 feet; building 2 to 3, 126 feet; building 3 to 4, 127 feet; building 4 to 5, 341 feet. The Settlement Agreement, PUD, Bald Eagle Management Plan, recommendations from the Planning Commission, and three SDPs reviewed and approved by staff were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 22, 2008. This action was taken in total as part of the Summary Agenda. Again, The Board approved all documents as presented without objection from the County Attorney, County Manager, county staff, the petitioner, the petitioners agent or citizens. Clear and unambiguous. Staff cites several examples of supposed historical application of the administrative reduction of building separations. However, only one of the examples represents a high rise tower project and it is a side yard set back not a building separation situation. In this instance, staffs action was understandable since the Waterpark Place building is not next to another high rise but rather a four lane tree lined parking area leading to a tram to Pelican Bay beach. There are no past projects analogous to the Cocohatchee/Kalea Bay project. Clear and unambiguous. Besides the clear and unambiguous language of Florida statutes being an important tenet, ignoring any portion of an ordinance or law or reducing the language to an absurdity is equally important. Staffs interpretation that there is no limit to reducing building separations because of clauses such as `footnote #3', is not a credible interpretation. Additionally, staff cannot ignore the fact that the CCPC recommendation was included with the PUD, Settlement Agreement and Bald Eagle Management Plan on the Summary Agenda and was approved by The Board on April 22, 2008. The citizens of Collier County harbor serious concerns that must be addressed in a timely fashion. Upholding the Settlement in it's entirety is not only reasonable and proper, but critical to the community's continued trust in the rule of law, our ordinances, the sanctity of contracts and settlements, and of course to the integrity of and respect for our system of county governance and the people elected and appointed to assure equal treatment for all. Thank you. Donna Reed Caron 790 Wiggins Bay Drive • Naples, FL. 34110 h' 239-514-2780 239-280-6857 My name is Diane Rupnow and I live in the Glen Eden Community. In 2000 the Cocohatchee Bay PUD was approved. That PUD contained a development standards chart and footnote that our attorney attached to his February 7th letter to YOU and I gave to commissioners again last Tuesday. Carl Stenddahl just read the footnote a few minutes ago. What was NOT in the PUD was an explanation of how that footnote could and would be interpreted by County staff. It appears that the County is misinterpreting the footnote to allow this developer to get away with drastically reducing separation between buildings. At the February 25, 2008 meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, Commissioner Caron said, "It absolutely defies credulity on the part of both staff and the petitioner that that asterisk in the development standards table means that 251 -foot buildings can essentially be built with zero lot lines." My sentiments exactly! Question: Are ALL developers privy to this slight of hand to get their buildings closer together or is this interpretation of this footnote reserved for those with special privilege? IF this footnote has been used in Collier County at least once before so a precedent IS in place, then I think the question becomes, were good planning standards used then to arrive at that decision? This footnote caused big controversy at the January 11 , 2008 Planning Commission meeting where several commissioners argued that this was na GOOD PLANNING. Our County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow referred to its interpretation as absurd and said, "The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time." Regarding the inclusion of the chart and footnote on the PUD approved in 2000, I have this to say. . . If the Planning Commissioner with a degree in Planning and Architecture has to get out a scale to determine that the building separations in the drawings did not meet the minimum required j i� rr I n s W 0 N �'" V 0 c .f V 0 <u~m i CD E NC "S m v) (Dy < C 'm cu D 03 N o Q m .- . D q Q, (D 6 0 a .Z C m /� N < rt 'r1 a Q A C--- Ifit . ......, m CC: n c , a D. N CO m o N d nN .._A_._.c -: O W N '$y O . ( :-- . . O O A N J 3 r 0 m v a II 6 d O m cr A \�6 /j� 0, (/ v .1 A r w O v o N 0. m w Q ( P m A O , , E 0 , ...„ , , , . r (3 . 1 , ----) 0 , , r O J iS it t A O m .- w -.Ztli W R \ y\ »4 » tu * : , § . \ % b o27H.4. o \ 0 0 \ � . / ��>/� 0 k R f .. . � u,) \ \ _, .,, g \ _ / , , } \ ift : } . f \ E ( / : ^ �\ HI » ( .) < 2} co0 ' Z z } } . \ ; # C--- ƒ § ) ® \ F____, \ /� L § . ° \« } § ~� > S ,„ .. D , ____ , \ § x \ \ / ...,•,.., ...„.„. 1, ..8 \ it- ` ` \ I Additional Facts For Commissioners Mark Strain, chair of the Planning Commission met with us and said he would research our concerns and find answers to our questions. Then 2 days later he informed us that he could have no further involvement in this matter because it might become a conflict of interest for him down the road and yet he continued to take actions regarding this matter by having breakfast with Commissioner McDaniel the Friday BEFORE we were scheduled to meet with that Commissioner. Seems he told Commissioner McDaniel that there had been a precedent set for County staff's interpretation of that footnote accompanying the building standards chart in the PUD and so the Kalea Bay project was a done deal. On March 30, 2017, we asked for public records that would document the precedent disclosed to Commissioner McDaniel as well as any other instances in Collier County in which the footnote accompanying the building standards chart had been interpreted to mean that building separation could be infinitely administratively reduced by County "staff" if skewed buildings had common architectural theme. We have received no public records yet. Does County "staff" have autonomous authority and unlimited discretion to interpret a footnote accompanying the standards chart to mean that this developer does not have to abide by the formula for determining minimum building separation as long as the buildings have common architectural theme and are skewed? Just so you know, plans the developer submitted to the SFWMD do not match the plans which the County sent us when awe sked for the most current Golf Course plans. Shouldn't plans submitted to the County and SFWMD match exactly in reference to land usage? Paragraph 15 of the Settlement Agreement states that "Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorney's fees or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord. No. 200-88 . . . . Does Paragraph 15 mean that the developer can't sue the County? Why should we have to spend over $2,000 to file an Administrative Appeal to get the Commissioners to review something they should be reviewing since they are bound to uphold the terms of the Settlement Agreement? Why should we spend $925 in notification fees to notify ourselves? Why should we have to file an Administrative Appeal and put ourselves in judicial jeopardy when our purpose is to provide County Commissioners with information they should have received from their own staff? If the County can't be sued by this developer, perhaps the County should make decisions that reign in this developer's greed, protect our Naples "sense of place" and uphold the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Paragraph 25 states, "In this respect, the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release. That Case No. shows that it is still pending. 9 years later. According to the Bert Harris Statute 70, both the County and the developer should have done that so that the 20th Judicial Count could protect the public interest. We'd like to see the public interest protected. The terms of the Settlement Agreement have not been upheld and it is up to the Collier County Commissioners to uphold them. How can you do that if you are not informed by County staff? The Commissioners were circumvented in 2008 when they were not provided with clear information about the controversy involving the interpretation of the footnote. They are still being circumvented and deprived of information regarding the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. This is not the first time that these developers have changed plans in their favor. We, the citizens, will suffer the consequences and experience the ruination of our beautiful view—forever. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 BiIIMcDaniel@colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net McDaniel, Taylor, Saunder, Fiala, Solis Dear Collier County Commissioners: As a long-time Naples business owner, I am concerned that the opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay, should it be successful, may adversely affect the Southwest Florida economy and the Collier County tax base. Projects such as this generate significant tax revenue for our county and at the same time require little in government services. That's a win-win for government. It will also provide hundreds of jobs to an industry that is coming off years of stagnation. Commissioners, I urge you to support the Kalea Bay development project and allow our free market to work as it is intended and over the objections of the not- in-my-backyard opposition. Sincerely, Renee Gaddis Renee Gaddis Interiors 9915 Tamiami Trail N #1 Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 431-8352 LykinsDave From: Renee Gaddis <renee@reneegaddis.com> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 1:16 PM To: SaundersBurt Subject: Fwd: Kalea Bay PUD Attachments: renee letter July 6 2017.pdf Renee Gaddis Principal Designer RENEE GADDIS INTERIQRS t.239.431.8352 m. 239.848.5794 a. 9915 Tamiami Trail N, Suite 1 Naples, FL 34108 renee@reneegaddis.com www.reneegaddis.com r Begin forwarded message: From: Renee Gaddis <renee@reneegaddis.com> Subject: Kalea Bay PUD Date: July 6, 2017 at 1:14:27 PM EDT To: Bi11McDaniel@colliergov.net, PennyTaylor@colliergov.net, BurtSaunders@colliergov.n, DonnaFiala@colliergov.net, Andysolis@colliergov.net 1 Renee Gaddis Principal Designer RENEE GADDIS INTERIORS ! t. 239.431.8352 I m.239.848.5794 a. 9915 Tamiami Trail N, Suite 1 I Naples, FL 34108 renee@reneegaddis.com www.reneegaddis.com t 3 i i 4 3 7 I I z I I i I I 1 I i 2 1 1 LykinsDave From: Daniel Fusco <twcfusco@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2017 11:50 AM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay opposition Attachments: imagel jpeg; ATT00001.txt Hello, Just a quick note in regards to the petition against phase 2 of Kalea Bay. I am the owner/operator of Woodworkers Cabinet of Naples, Inc and we work closely with CR Smith and his team to manufacture custom cabinetry and millwork for his clients. We have grown our company to over 30 employees and we primarily service CR Smith and the Kalea Bay project.We have recently purchased a second location down the street from our current shop on Taylor Rd.to enable us to keep up with the needs of the Kalea project and we are extremely excited for the remaining phases of this development. Please consider the impact on the families who are counting on this project for years to come and will need this to help pay for their kids college. (I have 5 of them!) Thank you and we appreciate our beautiful town and all the opportunities it offers to the trades people! Sincerely, Daniel Fusco 1 LykinsDave From: Bret Groos <Bret.Groos@communityelectricfl.com> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 10:02 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Good morning, I am reaching out to you all today to express my support for the Kalea Bay project, much like the hundreds of people that have purchased units in the first two buildings we are all very proud of this community. We have been operating in collier county for 45 years and are a strong supporter of this place we call home.We understand that from time to time there is opposition to growth, it's funny how most of it is from people who have moved here and know think no one else should. I am sure you all deal with this very often.That being said,the stalling of this project is starting to have a financial impact on many of the local subcontractors,vendors and suppliers that are involved in the project, all of these businesses supply thousands of jobs in Collier County and have made commitments to the project team to reserve man power and re-sources for the project, so from the owners to the workers there is concern of the starting date of phase 2. Thank you for your attention, hopefully this can be rectified soon. II COMMUNIT�Yr.ELECTRIC AaOFROLLIER, INC. votr sdnu 1r Bret Russell Groos President Office: 239-262-3438 Fax: 239-262-6943 Mobile: 239-253-0807 Bret.Groos@communityelectricfl.com 1 LykinsDave From: Ings Lodge <inga@kaleabay.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 3:15 PM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.neT;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; FialaDonna Subject: Kalea Bay To Collier County Commissioners: It is with great disappointment that I have heard there is to be a hearing on the future status of Kalea Bay. I am currently the Broker at the sales office at Kalea. We have had to deal with the harassment of many names on this list. They enter the sales office and complain we have illegally started building,they loudly complain we don't have permits etc. They do this in front of customers. Diane Rupnow even started a web page that we had our legal department shut down. Out of the 120 condo's in Tower 100, 60% are new buyers to Naples. They have the same dream as everyone else that would like to make Naples home. They have had plenty of opportunities to purchase in other existing high rises and chose to wait for Kalea Bay. There is nothing that says financial stability in Collier County then starting a high rise community. The last high-rise to be completed was Moraya Bay in 2009. Our new buyers are majority cash buyers paying an average of$1,800,000 to live at Kalea. Naples is poised to have a 4.9% increase in Economic Growth in the next year. How does that happen if a few people can dictate what can and can't be built? It seems that the citizens have more power than the Collier County Commissioners. The Commissioners that we vote for. 80% of our new residents at Kalea Bay are not homestead, that means these new homeowners will pay the highest property tax. That will be over $2,160,000 in property tax paid a year just on Tower 100! Of the list of 93 names presented for the appeal are you aware that 29% of the people on the list are not full- time residents? They can not vote for the County Commissioners, but they are allowed to dictate whether 300 full-time residents continue to work in North Naples. We are not just building the Kalea Bay community, we are building FOR THE COMMUNITY, for those people that work and live in North Naples. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Warm Regards, INGA W. LODGE BROKER/VP SALES & MARKETING 13910 Old Coast Rd Naples, FL. 34110 (o) 239.793.0110 (c)239.560.1171 Wilson&Associates Exclusive listing agent KALEA PAVESE KATHERINE R.ENGLISH Partner Direct dial:(239)336-6249 LJI\L\I\IT Email:KatherineEnelishnpaveselaw.com 1833 Hendry Street,Fort Myers, Florida 33901 1 P.O. Box 1507, Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1507 1(239) 334-2195 Fax(239) 332-2243 July 7,2017 Board of County Commissioners Mr. Matthew McLean Collier County,Florida Engineering Services- 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Growth Management Division Naples, FL 34112 Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Collier County Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112-5749 Naples,FL 34112-5746 Re: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Administrative Appeal by Judith S. Palay, et al. Kalea Bay Phases 2-6 PL20160002242 Ladies and Gentlemen: Our firm represents Lodge/Abbott Associates, LLC and Lodge/Abbott Investments Associates,LLC. (collectively,"Lodge/Abbott"),the owners of Cocohatchee Bay PUD.We are co-counsel with Margaret Cooper, Esquire,of Jones Foster Johnston&Stubbs who handled the earlier litigation resulting in the 2008 Settlement Agreement regarding this project. I will be appearing at the appeal hearing on July 11, 2017 on behalf of Lodge/Abbott.Also appearing for Lodge/Abbott will be Karen Bishop of PMS Inc.of Naples,Inc.Ms.Bishop is the project entitlement facilitator. This appeal arises from a challenge to Lodge/Abbott's request for an amendment to a previously issued site development plan(SDP Amendment)for the project authorizing Buildings 2,3 and 5. The original 2008 SDP for which an amendment is sought was approved by staff in the regular course of business. The Appellants make much of the fact that the County and the land owner entered into the Settlement Agreement resolving a dispute over the appropriate approach to a bald eagle management plan for the project. The Settlement Agreement and its provisions are not relevant to the appeal challenging the present amendment to the SDP. The SDP Amendment subject to this appeal is limited in scope and includes only issues normally addressed by staff in the regular course of business. 4632 VINCENNES BOULEVARD,SUITE 101 4524 GUN CLUB ROAD,SUITE 203 CAPE CORAL,FLORIDA 33904 WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33415 (239)542-3148 (561)471-1366 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 2 The purpose of this letter is as follows: To request intervenor and party status for the project owner,Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC.,identified as the owner for the application to the amendment of AR-5284, Phases 2-6. To provide you with historical context of the Cocohatchee PUD and 2008 Settlement Agreement relative to the present SDP Amendment that is the subject of this appeal. To request determination of the standing of the Appellants to take an appeal in the first place. To address the scope of the appeal and identify the limited issues which can be heard in this appeal. To address the authority vested in staff and the standard of review of the Board on an appeal. To address the substantive arguments raised by Appellants. Intervenor/Party Status Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC. is the project owner and holder of the amended site development plan approval(SDP)for Buildings 2,3 and 5,from which this appeal arises.The appeal is a challenge to the decision of County staff approving the requested amendment; however, the appeal directly affects Lodge/Abbott's authorized plans for the phases of the project specifically approved by this SDP Amendment. Lodge/Abbott is an interested and affected party with vested development rights and it should be given party intervenor status and, be allowed to present evidence and argument and cross examine other parties' witnesses. We request confirmation of the same. Historical Overviews of the PUD and the 2008 Settlement PUD History. Collier County Ordinance No. 2000-88 was passed December 12, 2000. It approved a planned unit development known as the "Cocohatchee Bay PUD" (the "Subject Property" or "Project"). Attached to the Ordinance was the original PUD document. Attached to the PUD document was a Bald Eagle Management Plan to address bald eagles nesting in an extremely degraded pine tree on a portion of the property that was near the planned residential development. The development committed to provide all required state and federal permits as a requirement of development. The PUD Ordinance authorized 590 residential units in five residential towers and multi-family homes located on a parcel west of the golf course.The ratified PUD constituted a substantial"down zoning"from the prior zoning substantially reducing the number of units and significantly reducing the traffic impacts associates 1 therewith. In addition to the immediately realized reduction of density,there was substantial increase of 1 This historical overview comes from Lodge/Abbott's Petition for Certiorari and Appendix.The Petition and Appendix is submitted separately as part of the record in this Appeal.The Petition contains more details as to the facts.This letter is a brief overview. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 3 neighborhood open space/conservation areas that would not be otherwise attainable. It was the increase in preservation/open space which garnished the approval of criteria noted in the PUD specifically utilizing the more desirable clustered design type development.By encouraging site design that located most of the units in the five towers, rather than single family or low density multi-family homes, the end result was more open space, golf course, and preservation areas which now constitute approximately 90% of the 532 acres in the property. The project's preservation commitment is extraordinary. The project's preserve areas total 431.37 acres, including uplands, wetlands and submerged lands. The preservation provided by the project west of Vanderbilt Drive completes the connection for a wetland/waterway preservation area that stretches from Bonita Beach Road to Bluebill Avenue and connects to the State owned lands along the coast. Initial Reliance of Lodge/Abbott. The original applicant for the PUD Ordinance was a contract purchaser,Vanderbilt Partners II,Ltd. Lodge/Abbott later bought Vanderbilt Partners' contract in reliance on passage of the PUD at a purchase price in excess of$32 million was set in reliance upon the passage of the PUD. Lodge/Abbott has also invested substantial time and money toward active development. Also,Collier County required Lodge/Abbott to provide monies ($3,000,000.) for improvements to the bridge, dedicate easements,and provide rights of way on Vanderbilt Drive. Right-of-way was also provided for Wiggins Pass Road as a condition of the PUD. PUD Requirement for a Bald Eagle Management Plan. At the time of PUD approval,a pair of bald eagles had nested in a dead slash pine tree located on the westerly portion of the Subject Property. The LDC and GMP required a Bald Eagle Management Plan which had to comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the USFWS and FFWCC. Collier County GMP and LDC on Species Protection—Deference to State and Federal Permitting. Collier County's GMP(addressing protected species)called for deference to state and federal agency guidelines and their decisions. County staff had no expertise in such matters.The County policies referred to the standards contained in the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and the USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. For bald eagles, the Habitat Management Guidelines called for protective zones around the nest and restricted development activities during the nesting season. In Collier County once there has been a specific ruling by the USFWS and FFWCC,subparagraph(3)of GMP Policy 7.1.2.became the operative standard and deference to the specific ruling is mandated. Similarly,the County Land Development Code§3.04.02(2005),mandated the owner use the guidelines found in the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan and Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle. The Code repeated the GMP deference to the specific rulings of the state and federal agencies on individual properties, on a case-by-case basis. There was never a proposal to harm the eagles or even to cut down the nest tree. SDP Application. After getting state and federal approvals,Lodge/Abbott submitted site development plans("SDP")for the clubhouse and residential dwelling units to Collier County. The SDP application called for modifications to the site plan and moving of units from the golf course to the tower buildings. Also, the PUD document had a setback requirement between principal structures,calling for half of the sum of the height Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7, 2017 Page 4 of the structures. It also provided for staff approval(administratively)for reduced set back between clustered principal structures with a common architectural theme.See Section 3.5 of the original PUD. The new SDP proposed to reduce setbacks between principal structures.The PUD document spells out that the original Master Plan was conceptual only and amendments could be made according to the LDC. The LDC provides for staff approval for such changes. County Response to SDP Submittal. In response to the SDP submittals, Collier County issued a comment letter asserting that the Bald Eagle Management Plan required review by both the EAC and the Planning Commission, as well as final approval by the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC"). Lodge/Abbott was told to file a rezoning petition to amend the PUD Ordinance in order to amend the Bald Eagle Management Plan. The County never took the position that SDP amendments for the project required BCC approval. PUD Amendment Application. Under protest, Lodge Abbott submitted an application for a PUD amendment to modify the Bald Eagle Management Plan. BCC Limited Review to Eagle Plan Only. On September 21, 2004, the BCC voted that the PUD amendment was a limited review—limited solely to the Bald Eagle Management Plan("BEMP"). No other aspect of the PUD was considered. Therefore, density, setbacks, height, etc., were not reconsidered. The County recognized that any changes to these items were administrative in nature and for staff review only. Public Hearing-Vote on BEMP. The BCC voted to deny the application by vote of 4 to 1. The vote of the BCC was limited only to the consideration of the Bald Eagle Management Plan.The denial was based solely on the BCC's conclusion that the County could impose tougher standards than the FFWCC and USFWS and could protect a single pair of eagles rather than the approach mandated by FFWCC and USFWS. The County never took the position during this process that site development plan modifications required public hearings and BCC approval. The Litigation. In response to the decision denying the Bald Eagle Management Plan,Lodge/Abbott filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Circuit Court challenging the BCC's decision and a Bert Harris damage claim for the diminution in value of its property should the court determine that the County had the legal authority to prohibit all development to protect a single pair of eagles. The 2008 Settlement.In 2008,the County and Lodge/Abbott entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement") to resolve the litigation. Aside from the additional monies paid by Lodge/Abbott for County roadway improvements, there are several relevant aspects to the Settlement Agreement to bear in mind: Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 5 The Settlement Agreement approved the PUD amendments to change the location of the units into one R zone and to amend the Master Development Plan. Original PUD R1 zone 480 units 44.0 acres R2 zone 90 units 9.7 acres Golf Course 20 units 170.39 acres 590 units total Amended PUD * R Zone 588 units 53.7 acres Golf Course 2 units 170.39 acres 590 units total *See Amended PUD Paragraph 2.3 and Table I The Settlement Agreement did not address or include approval of the SDP changes calling for the requested reduced setbacks.The Settlement Agreement was,however,contingent upon staffs timely approval of the three SDPs. The County recognized and understood that the review and approval of those three SDPs, including subsequent modifications to those SDPs were considered normal exercises of administrative staff level functions. In other words,approvals of SDPs were not,nor have they ever been matters for the BCC.See paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement.2 Contrary to Appellants' assertion, the Settlement Agreement did not require or otherwise provide for BCC review of future SDP amendments. It only required BCC approval of changes to the Settlement Agreement itself,which relates to the bald eagle management plan,not site development plans.See paragraph 21 of the Settlement Agreement.3 The Settlement Agreement approved the Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan and removed the requirement that any future amendment to the BEMP required County EAC review. See paragraph 6.9.F. How the County has implemented Settlement Agreement. Since 2008 both the County and Lodge/Abbott have implemented the Settlement Agreement exactly as it reads and as they understood it—that SDP review and approval is a staff administrative matter. This is exactly how every other project in Collier 2 3. The settlement shall be contingent upon three site development plans("SDPs")that Lodge has submitted being approved by the County as well as the development standards set forth in the original PUD and may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR 5283,and AR5284. 3 21. This Agreement and Release may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release.This Agreement and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. { Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 6 County is treated under the LDC, whether in PUD zoning or other normal zoning districts. SDP plans are internal to the project and are an administrative matter since the impact externally has been mitigated thru the development criteria established in the approved PUD Ordinance and Collier Land Development Code. Staff review assures that the details comply with the objective PUD standards and the LDC standards. Technical and ordinary discretionary planning matters have been delegated to staff. This is no different than SDP approval by staff for any other zoning districts(whether it be RSF,SMF,Commercial,PUD or otherwise). A public hearing is not required and there was no intent to deviate from that process for the Cocohatchee PUD through the acceptance of the Settlement Agreement. In fact,the following SDP amendments to Cocohatchee Bay have occurred administratively since 2008: Original SDP Phase 1 =AR-5283, June 2008. Subsequent staff approvals: Short Title Description SDP# Approval Date 1 Phase lA Gatehouse, lA 201400013 82 Oct-14 2 Phase 1B Balance of Ph 1 20150000420 Aug-15 3 Water B Water and Sewer public 20150002903 Jan-16 Fire at cottages,trellis, dumpster, 4 SDPI 1 Generator 20160000723 Apr-16 Tennis,pickleball, fire lines club, club entrance,water east club,roof 5 SDPI 2 leaders tower, golf parking,maint 20160002600 Dec-16 parking, island x W/S Record Water and Sewer Record Dwgs 20160002553 6 SDPI Phasing Maint Phasing plan for maint bldg. 20170000649 Feb-17 7 SDPI Misc Revisions Misc "catch-up" revisions 20170001964 Jun-17 Finally,delegation of approval rights to staff for minor changes to the overall development(including the reduction of setbacks for clustered developments with a common architectural theme)is commonplace in Collier County and is not unique to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD.It is called for in the LDC at Section 4.02.04 A. The stated purpose in this code section is to allow internal clustering in an innovative design to accommodate greater open space elsewhere in a planned development.How clustering is achieved is a design feature which is properly reviewed by professional planning staff. The BCC has approved the clustering concept as a policy matter as set forth in the LDC and the details of how to implement that policy are delegated to planning staff Contrary to Appellants' suggestion that the buildings are being crammed onto a small land mass, the total vistas and open space provided by this project are vast(90%of the project)and greatly exceed the code requirements. The impact of the additional reduction in building separation in the SDP Amendment on the existing open space is nonexistent. Further,there is no discernible impact on any perceived external vistas from Vanderbilt Drive at 35 miles an hour or from the north or south of the project. If the buildings were further Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 7 separated,there would be a need to further impact areas previously set aside as preserves to accommodate the development. Standing and Status of Appellants The location of the proposed buildings is significant.They are located as far west into the interior of the property as possible, abutting the westerly wetlands and preserves, to provide the greatest distance from the Vanderbilt Drive right-of-way.The property is bounded on the west by Wiggins State Park and Barefoot Beach County Park and the wetland preserve buffers for those parks. To the east of the project's 159+/- acre golf course parcel is Tarpon Cove PUD. Wiggins Bay PUD,is located south of the golf course parcel and Wiggins Pass Road.To the north of the golf course parcel is Glen Eden,Falling Waters,Bentley Village and Audubon. To the south of the high-rise parcel on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive are the existing mid- to high-rise projects of Aqua,Pelican Isle Yacht Club, Marina Bay,Anchorage,and the Dunes PUD. To the north of the western parcel is Arbor Trace PUD and Egrets Walk. Most of the Appellants live north of the Cocohatchee PUD.Due to their specific locations within their own development projects,the existing substantial landscaping buffers for those projects provide visual screening so that they are not impacted visually by this project. The building separation modification is internal to the Kalea Bay project and addresses the buildings' physical proximity to each other, not to other developments. Moreover the north to south alignment of the buildings means that changes in the building separation as proposed has no visual impact of the vistas from the property to the north. Internal setbacks anticipated by a clustering site design are truly an internal matter — not a development aspect that burdens any adjoining property owner or neighbor. Pursuant to Section 250-58,an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party may appeal a site development plan. An affected property owner is an owner of property located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is effective. An aggrieved or affected party is a person or group of persons who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth Management Plan,Land Development Code, or Building Code(s). While the alleged adverse interest for an aggrieved or affected party may be shared in common with other members of the community at large,it must exceed the general interest in the community good common to all persons (emphasis added). The Appellants have failed to provide justification for their standing to raise this appeal, either as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party. Prior to hearing the basis of the appeal, as filed, Appellants must establish their standing to bring the appeal either due to proximity to the project or an interest which exceeds the general interests in the community good of all persons. To the extent that one,some or all of the Appellants cannot establish their status as an affected property owner or an aggrieved or affected party,their individual claims should be dismissed for lack of standing. fi Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 8 Scope of Appeal—What Can Be Heard and What Evidence Can be Relied Upon �! The Appellants raise nine issues—some of which have nothing to do with the current SDP approval.See for example Issue 7(Restrictive Covenants),Issue 8 (Invasive Control),and Issue 9(10 Foot Pathway).These should be stricken from the appeal of the SDP approval as irrelevant and untimely. Secondly,Appellants do not delineate between early SDP amendments for which the time to challenge has expired and the current SDP Amendment subject to this appeal. Appellants' challenge to any decision covered under a prior SDP Amendment that was not earlier challenged is untimely and cannot be considered. Third,Appellants have submitted a "record" of exhibits to which objection is made. Most documents referred to are rank hearsay-letters,newspaper articles,etc. The Appellants' "record" should be stricken and any exhibits submitted at hearing should be ruled upon individually as to admissibility. Most importantly,Appellants rely heavily upon a recommendation by the Planning Commission in 2008 on the Settlement Agreement to remove staffs discretion to administratively reduce setbacks in accordance with that permissible for a clustered development.The BCC rejected this suggestion in 2008.This recommendation was not included in the Settlement Agreement nor can be inserted into the Settlement Agreement by the current BCC under the guise of an appeal of the SDP amendment. Standard of Review The BCC's standard of review for an appeal of an SDP is not addressed in the LDC.Such review should be limited to determining whether staff deviated from the requirements of the LDC and PUD language relevant to the reduction building setbacks in issuing the amended SDP approval. In both the Settlement Agreement and the LDC, the planning staff is afforded discretion to approve reduced separation between buildings to facilitate clustered developments.The building separation reductions are clearly part of the design elements internal to a planned project which meets the specific clustering goals and criteria of the LDC.These types of design features are not policy decision matters for the BCC,but rather technical,internal design issues more properly heard by the County's professional planning staff.The discretion to address these kinds of design questions has been delegated to staff by LDC and by the PUD documents.Staff acted within the parameters set forth in both documents in deciding to issue the requested amendment to the SDP. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 9 Substantive Arguments Issue 1. Public Hearing Appellants assert that the Settlement Agreement requires a public hearing and BCC approval before amendment to SDP plans.It does not.In fact,the Settlement Agreement did not call for the BCC to approve the 2008 SDP plans—but only made the Settlement Agreement contingent upon staffs review and approval of the 2008 SDP plans.The Settlement Agreement only modified the PUD Document vis a vis the Eagle Management Plan.Paragraph 21 deals with amending the Settlement Agreement only—not amending future SDPs.The PUD document specifically requires SDP amendments to be reviewed and issued by staff and clearly allows modification to building setbacks to facilitate clustering by staff's administrative action. Issue 2. Building Separation Appellants rely heavily on the Collier County Planning Commission("CCPC") suggestion in 2008 to eliminate the staff's discretion to consider reduced building setbacks to facilitate clustering.This suggestion by the CCPC was not accepted by BCC and is not part of the Settlement Agreement the BCC approved. Contrary to Appellants claims that the buildings are too close,the Collier County LDC specifically sets forth definitions for"cluster"and"cluster development"that provide for closely grouping buildings in order to provide environmental benefits. Indeed, the definitions for those words include the rationale for allowing closely grouping buildings in order to increase open space and reduce impacts to native vegetation and habitat areas while reducing the costs of providing services. 4 Next Appellants argue that staff abused its discretion in approving the reduction of building separation by large percentages and that reductions should be limited to small percentages of the overall building separation requirements. The Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards for the "R" District set forth in Table II of the amended PUD states that the distance between principal structures is 0.5 times the sum of the building heights, subject to Note 3 which states: Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and the walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The plan language of the PUD clearly states that the building separation can be administratively reduced. Further,since the BCC in reviewing and adopting the amended PUD as part of the Settlement 4 LDC Section 1.08.02 Cluster: Concentrating or grouping buildings more closely than in conventional arrangements,locating such buildings on a limited portion of a development site,in order to allow for open space or preservation of natural features. Cluster development:A design technique allowed within residential zoning districts or where residential development is an allowable use.This form of development employs a more compact arrangement of dwelling units by allowing for,or requiring as the case may be,reductions in the standard or typical lot size and yard requirements of the applicable zoning district,in order to: increase common open space;reduce the overall development area;reduce alterations and impacts to natural resources on the site;to preserve additional native vegetation and habitat areas;and,to reduce the cost of providing services,including but not limited to central sewer and water. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 10 Agreement chose not prohibit administrative reductions of building separation nor did it set a limit on administrative discretion to do so. The modification of the building separation by staff is clearly authorized where the walls are not parallel to each other and the language of the amended PUD clearly explains the circumstances which would give rise to that determination(angled,skewed,or offset). Further,clearly the BCC knows how to limit staff discretion for clustering since it adopted limits to building as part of Table 5 of LDC Section 4.02.04. LDC Section 4.02.04 sets forth the design standards for cluster residential design in Subsection(C) Table 5 which clearly limits the reduction of distance between principle structures to no less than 10 feet. However, Subsection F goes on to state that additional reductions may be approved by the Collier County Planning Commission. Clearly,the BCC does limit staff discretion to reducing the building separation to no less than 10 feet. There is no indication in the documents associated with this Project that this limitation applies to the SDP Amendment. In this instance, Lodge/Abbott is entitled to seek administrative approval to reduced building separations pursuant to its amended PUD. Even if the limitation on the reduction of building separation set forth in LDC Section 4.02.04 does apply to the pending SDP Amendment, the building separation reduction authorized in no way approaches the limits set forth in Table 5. Issue 3. Building Widths This is the same argument as Issue 2, but stated in terms of building width rather than building separation. This argument fails for the same reasons set forth above. Issue 4. Guest Suites This issue is not timely raised. Guest suites were approved as part of the original PUD and authorized for construction in earlier SDPs.Guest suites as defined in the LDC and the PUD are not"units"for purposes of calculating density by rule. Guest suites cannot be sold to third parties,but are instead part of the common area amenities for use by all unit owners specifically to accommodate their guest overflow.Further,these units do not include a kitchen which is required for a dwelling units. This issue cannot be addressed again on appeal of approval of an amended SDP for Buildings 2, 3 and 5. gF 1 1 5 Collier LDC Section 1.08.02 Definitions: Dwelling(also called dwelling unit) :Any building,or part thereof,constituting a separate,independent housekeeping establishment for no more than 1 family,and physically separated from any other rooms or housekeeping establishments which may be in the same structure.A dwelling unit contains sleeping facilities,sanitary facilities,and a kitchen. Guest quarters/guest suites:An attached or detached room or suite,which could be used as a temporary sleeping accommodation, which is integrated as part of the principal use of the property and may contain running water as long as it is not configured or of a size that may accommodate a kitchen. 1 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 11 Issue 5. Building Height This is a non-issue. The locating amenities on the roof area of each tower were previously addressed. There is no amenity located on the roof that affects calculation of the building height. The current amenities located on the roof tops are limited to a recreational area that is not enclosed in an air-conditioned space. By code,these amenities are not sufficient to constitute an additional floor for height calculations. Issue 6. Garage Dwelling Unit The proposed building manager's living area in the SDP Amendment is not within the garage,but in a separate building that is part of the common area for the Project. It is an accessory use, not a unit offered separately for sale,to assure housing for on-site management. Staffs approval of the building manager's living area in the separate building as an accessory use has no effect on the calculation of building height for Buildings 2, 3 and 5. The approval is authorized by the PUD provision regarding accessory uses. See Section 3.4.B.3.6 Furthermore,the manager's unit does not count toward density under the applicable LDC regulations and the PUD as an accessory use. Issue 7. Restrictive Covenant This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal. Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to restrictive covenants. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 8. Invasive Control. This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal. Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to invasive control. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 9. Ten Foot Pathway This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal. Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to the ten foot pathway. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. 6 3.4.B.3 Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature to the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Department Director determines to be compatible in the"R"Districts. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 12 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons the appeal filed herein should be denied. Sincerely, PAVESE LAW FIRM B7 AP' atherine R. E4glis MLC/KRE:ebg cc: Ralf Brookes,Esquire Margaret L. Cooper, Esquire Michael Bosi Karen Bishop LykinsDave From: Sandy Smith <SandySmith@Paveselaw.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 2:30 PM To: McLeanMatthew; KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: BosiMichael; ralf@ralfbrookesattorney.com; mcooper@jonesfoster.com; Karen Bishop (karenbishop@pmsnaples.com); Katherine English Subject: Request for Party Intervenor Status.July 7, 2017 Attachments: Request for Party Intervenor Status.July 7 2017.pdf Ms. English requested the attached pdf document be forwarded to you for your information and review. Hard copies will be hand delivered shortly. Please contact us at your convenience if you have any questions or cannot open the attachment. Sandy Smith PAVE Legal Assistant to Katherine R. English 1833 Hendry Street(33901) T A Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, FL 33902 �-"' ' Direct 239.336.6249 Fax 239.332.2243 sandysmith(a,paveselaw.com Visit our website: www.paveselaw.com Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this transmission is legally privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone call to (239) 334-2195 and delete the message. Thank you. This law firm acts as a debt collector. This e-mail may be an attempt to collect a debt. If so, all information obtained will be used for that purpose. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd. 1 LykinsDave From: Fred Schuman <fs@jndmech.com> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 1:07 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Josh Willard (Josh.willard@manhattanconstruction.com); Nate Farnsworth Subject: Re; Petitioned opposition of Kalea Bay Tower 2 permit application Attachments: To Collier County Commissioners.docx Dear sir and madam Please review the attached abbreviated summery documenting J&D Mechanical's historical Kalea Bay man power activity. Thank you in advance for your consideration during the opposition deliberation process. Thanks Fred R Schuman Cell 239.770.2828 Office 239.288.5834 Email link fs@Indmech.com President J&D Mechanical LLC. CMC 1249359 The information contained in this email message, including all attached documents, is intended only for the professional /personal and confidential use of the designated recipients named above and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately and delete it from his or her computer. J&D Mechanical LLC. 5021 Luckett Rd Fort Myers FL 33905 1 To: Collier County Commissioners. From:J&D Mechanical LLC. Re: Petitioned opposition of Kalea Bay Tower 2 permit application. AS the Mechanical Contractor for both Manhattan and CR Smith any opposition to permitting is Extremely Concerning for many reasons but our immediate concern is for our employees and their families. Below is data to illustrate the financial impact of not permitting Tower 2 on our small businesses employees, using Tower 1 as a benchmark given that tower 2 is very similar. Tower 2 activity for MEP trades was anticipated to begin on or about 12/1/17, listed are hours for J&D fulltime Kalea Bay field employees and our fabrication facility employees, whose times is also applied to Kalea activity's as shop, the applied hours stated are from our job costing data from 6/1/16 thru 5/31/17 to provide clear time line of 1 full year of activity for reference clarity. Please note that appropriate pay scale with full benefits including family health insurance applies to all full-time employees. • Over the 12-month time line above we posted 51,085 field applied hours or (25 full time employees) Tower 1. • Over the 12-month time line above we posted 13,637 shop applied hours or(7 full time employees)for pre fabrication, packaging and delivery from our fabrication facility to Tower 1. • Tower 1 alone employed 32 full time employees for referenced duration. Additional activity over the 12-month time line above we posted 21,873 hours, this time was applied to out-building facilities structures or additional(10 full time employees)for same referenced duration. Business office operations staff employed by J&D Mechanical to facilitate pre-construction planning through current activity for approximately 30 months to date, staff includes Management, project coordinator, estimators, cad-draftsmen, clerical and accounting. we have applied 3,500 business staff hours conservatively to date. Going forward activity for J&D Mechanicals service department upon completion of Tower 1 and out building facilities will include Service management, service technicians, dispatch and clerical for warranty repair service, 3 years contractually, 4,000 hours. Additional anticipated activity is preventative maintenance, this will employ minimally 1-2 full time employees initially to preform preventive maintenance tasks and none-warranty service to building 1 and it's 120 residences, common areas and out building facilities. Upon completion of Kalea Bay development the preventative maintenance and service tasks will employ 3-5 full time employees,potentially for the life of the structures. I hope that 1 have provide you with real world insight of how significantly Kalea tower 2 and this first-Class Development in its entirety is in supporting local small business as ours and their working-class families. J&D Mechanical is only 1 of hundreds of businesses this Development will financially impacts directly and/or indirectly today and for many years to come. Thank You Fred Schuman/President J&D Mechanical Nathen Farnsworth/Vice President J&D Mechanical LykinsDave From: Aluminum Glass Solutions <aluminumglasssolutions@centurylink.net> Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 1:36 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay To the Collier County Commissioners, We are a small family owned and locally operated glass &glazing company. We are currently subcontracted by C.R. Smith for the glazing specs at Kalea Bay. We have just learned that there is some opposition to the 2nd phase of Kalea Bay, and naturally we are concerned. An opportunity to participate in such a significant project, not only for our small company, but for so many trades in our community, that have the opportunity to participate, would benefit the whole community as this is a project that would last for many years—creating job opportunities and benefiting our industry. Considering the very hard years the construction industry and Collier County suffered not too long ago, a project of this magnitude is such a positive outlook for companies and their employees. It has truly been a positive experience to be part of this project for our company, as well as others we are sure. On the other hand the tremendous financial hardship for all involved with this project, if halted -would be appalling. Companies such as our own, have prepared themselves- invested in additional insurances, materials and even equipment to fulfill their contract obligations and most importantly provided additional opportunities of employment . Our company, as well as all the others involved and their employees, we are certain, will be immensely affected with the decisions that are made regarding this project. Thank you for your time and careful considerations. Many Thanks, Juan and Nydia Lopez Aluminum Glass Solutions, Inc. 239-354-1001 office 239-354-1009 fax info@AluminumGlassSolutions.com www.AluminumGlassSolutions.com 1 LykinsDave From: Nancy Farnsworth <nancy@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:38 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Attachments: 20170710151854.pdf Dear Commissioners: Please find attached signatures from 22 of our staff who work construction in Collier County and many who live in the county. Several have worked directly on the Kalea Bay project and are scheduled to work on the upcoming building 2. If the Kalea Bay Project is halted or delayed due to the protesters against this already approved building, we will have to lay people off. Please stand strong against those few part time residents who are against this project. Nana' Nancy P.Farnsworth Vice President Acres&Son Plumbing, Inc. Serca Management, LLC 239-597-5031 239-597-3740 fax 1 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net Bur tSaunders(a.colliergov.net PennyTaylorAcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincer. y, Signature az- Print Name 9--7t IV 7:167/Le_ Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolisQcolliergov.net BurtSaundersCa colliergov.net PennyTaylor(a�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel[a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincere \NY Signature Print Name 5/0 o`l-n 51- l w, Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�colliergov.net PennvTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature Print Name -273I t-4 A J Address i) 1e.s , cA) , 14 34.1,'7 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolisC colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennvTavlor a(�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(cr�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, :`117 41714 Signal e kLV- C-C31— Print Name tepeop (A) Address aatirrisc (;) f'L Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(c�colliergov.net AndySolis a(�colliergov.net BurtSaunders ancolliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDanielCa)colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature [/ / ( ;YheIc: � c <C # (4:3.44 it 'i Print Name ( r6( </$1 $1vCen/ Address ��y/mss Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacollierqov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(c�colliergov.net PennyTaylor(c�col liergov.net BillMcDaniel(&colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, 1-( 1,,‘ Ito Z3,m(r-0..._. Signature Print Name -1q00 k Address �Yl(. al /G //-Y13-V Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaRcolliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders©colliergov.net PennyTaylor c@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, .§4ji a$ /7 (4/e Signature rhoira 10,/e5 Print Name SYd� �7 �ti S1 S 4/ Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala a(�colliergov.net AndySolis(a colliergov.net BurtSaundersCa�colliergov,net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against he opposition who are do not want this project built. inOPlY, AAA4A /441 4 Signat re k0 fAA_S chOt kdab t\\ Print Name 22,E MCLA,v+1 7\\a Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(ccolliergov.net AndySolis ancolliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@ablliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Gc Signat e Print Name aoy 411,e vt r Address 4erie S el `33ai34.. Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�colliergov.net PennyTaylor(c�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signaturen 12. c1 Print Name S)o S - Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala aC�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@,colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sin -ly, All ...._. (),(-\.,} ,6r Sign re Print Name `f/I Aw. ieftvE Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolisAcolliergov.net BurtSaunderscolliergov.net 0(;, PennyTaylorcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel(c�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, � jasesh 0111/411 Signature 771) th-e-W— • Print Name O' 3 0 -X A - / 577 Address �� f Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala aacolliergov.net AndySolisacolliergov.net BurtSaundersacolliergov.net PennyTaylor aacolliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a,colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sin101111r _._._ 46.7 `I• •nature r tic zonirel4S1 Print Name I /0 3b ) �• (y �� Address S r. /L 3/3S Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis a(�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�colliergov.net PennyTaylor(a colliergov.net BillMcDanielCa?colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature r A. C 7 oti,c,Z, Print Name ^� /of t i 1-et'!' c -1 r• Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�col liergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BiIIMcDanieI(i colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, &\A' 440 4 ty110,1( Sit- ik ..41111 �! �e Trisco 4Ad ress Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(cr7colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a)colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Since ir Atfr ure Prin lame .434-3 02.6 ` ,five- .Slr/ Addres Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolis(a colliergov.net BurtSaunders(c�colliergov.net PennyTaylor(7a colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@a,colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Si cerely, u�re +I) Vtl°6\ )Nr1 efit. i6 at Print Name Address 3 GrT3 it Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov.net AndySolis a(�,colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor(ccolliergov.net BillMcDanielAcolliergov.net i RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected i the already •-rmitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be bui 1. Please stand fir against the opposition who are do not want this project built. i i'ej-ely, g 0 / i f i .1k3 t- mature le *(/) \ r 'rint Name Andres;, ail � AtJk . Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor(c�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, // Signature Name , L>✓/ ufc�Zr Print 11L/3 v woisnei75 Lou cip Z Z Address 11/9p) � 5 F 31/Jv3 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySoliscolliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennvTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(c�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sinc ely, Signature 1dro M04, 1v o Print Name I o c)c v\a,t 1-I0 L >n Address j� r Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis(a colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor@a,colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(a�colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Si cerely,., ' Sig►?.re V 40 0 O—Pie(%Pt. Print Name � //1 5 1 U1w Jl Cf'` 2.0 A dr s Ay CE5. t . `-3 41 / 6 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaCa colliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaundersCc�colliergov.net PennyTavlor@colliergov.net BillMcDanielCa7colliergov.net RE: Hearing regarding the continued construction at Kalea Bay Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: I work in the construction industry in Collier County. My livelihood and my family may adversely be affected if the already permitted building at Kalea Bay is not allowed to be built. Please stand firm against the opposition who are do not want this project built. Sincerely, Signature Print Name 27 h 63 ,r+c,,c,Itec &&a Address ODA, til .si,e,,/fs IL,t 31-/3i CONCRETE & MASONRY, INC. July 11, 2017 Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 Re: Kalea Bay Tower Project Dear Collier County Commissioners: This letter comes to you from a concerned contractor that has operated in Naples for over thirty years. It was with great excitement that we prepared for the Kalea Bay project post a recession during which many construction contractors, including Allen Concrete,had to lay off thousands of employees. When we were awarded the concrete portion of the Kalea Bay project,we hired an able workforce to undertake it. We anticipated that the project duration would be approximately seven years. The project consists of five towers, clubhouse facilities, guest cottages, maintenance building, tennis courts and golf course. We are under notice that there is opposition to the completion of the remaining towers. When construction of tower#2 was delayed, we had to lay off several employees and reduce the hours of several others. We have tried to hold-on,but if this project does not move forward or is delayed any more, we will be forced to lay-off more employees and/or cut more hours. These employees are the same ones that fuel our local economy with their spending. Projects such as Kalea Bay attract both seasonal and permanent residents who also contract miscellaneous local trades i.e. air conditioning contractors, painters, Allen Page 1 of 2 6301 SHIRLEY STREET • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 • OFFICE(239)566-1661 •FAX(239)566-8515 101111111111111=ft a, designers, and who patron local restaurants, hair and nail salons,car dealerships and so on. Since Naples is such a cyclical area, it needs sufficient attractive housing to compete with other cities. We have beautiful communities, but not many as grand as Kalea Bay. We hope you take into consideration all of these things and not simply the complaints of a few unit owners as you make your decision. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, cu_k: Chris Allen Cc: Bill McDaniel Penny Taylor Burt Saunders Donna Fiala Andy Solis Allen Page 2 of 2 LykinsDave From: Karen Laureano <KLaureano@allenconcrete.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:26 AM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Cc: Chris Allen; Susie Allen; Katie Wallace Subject: Kalea Bay Project Attachments: Kalea Bay.pdf Gentlemen and ladies: Please see attached letter from Mr.Allen in reference to the Kalea Bay project. Thank you, aileW CONCRETE & MASONRY INC. Karen Laureano 6301 Shirley Street Naples, FL 34109 239.566.1661 Ext. 216 239.254.8515 Fax klaureano@allenconcrete.com www.allenconcrete.com 1 r Ex parte Items - Commissioner Burt Saunders COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Board of Zoning Appeals 8.A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Judith S. Palay and 92 other property owners within the Cocohatchee Bay Neighborhood Communities,filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the administrative approval of building separations, building widths, building dwelling units, and building heights in the Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA-PL20160002242 for Kalea Bay aka Kinsale Condominium Phases II-VI.The subject property is located at the northwest and northeast corners of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South and Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170002165] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings Correspondence Xe-mails 1 'Calls Meetings: Diane Rupnow, Diane Ebert, Karen Bishop Correspondence & Emails: Numerous letters and emails from residents and construction trade groups Advertised Public Hearings 9.A. ***This item has been continued from the June 27, 2017 BCC meeting.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended,the Wolf Creek RPUD,to approve an insubstantial change to the PUD,to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only,and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34,Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 189±acres. [PDI-PL20160000404] (Mike Bosi, Director,Zoning Division) NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM 1 SEE FILE <Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls Meetings: Terri Abrams, Steve Bracci, Bruce Anderson Correspondence & Emails: Numerous emails from attorneys representing project development clients and residents of Black Bear Ridge LykinsDave From: R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:52 AM To: Steve Bracci Cc: SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: Re:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: image001 jpg; image002.png All, If the County had approved the prior owner's conceptual plan, I would have said "approved" and referenced an SDP#. That prior plan included the existing conceptual preserve area that would now be modified by my client's insubstantial change application. The point is that whether the conceptual Preserve is changed or not makes no difference about how many homes can fit on the land, regardless of the existing or modified preserve area. Opponents claim otherwise.They are simply wrong. I do have one correction from the project's engineer.The number of dwelling units on the prior owner's plan was 215. The 254 is the number is the number of remaining unbuilt units approved in the PUD. Thank You, R Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 Telephone: 239-659-4942 direct 239-261-9300 main Facsimile: 239-261-0884 RBAnderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:RBAnderson@napleslaw.com> www.napleslaw.com<http://www.napleslaw.com> On Jul 7, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com»wrote: Dear Board—this is in response to Mr. Anderson's email below. I believe you should ask Mr. Anderson to clarify what he means when he states: "The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong." The impression left by Mr.Anderson is that the prior 254 site plan was approved by the county, and that the new presently pending 215 unit site plan now reduces the approved site plan. Mr. Anderson should clarify whether the county ever approved a 254 site plan, or whether he is instead just referencing a concept plan on a sheet of paper that was never approved. Sincerely, 1 1 Steve Bracci <image002.png> Steven J. Bracci, PA, Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635<tel:%28239%29%20596-2635>; Fax: (239) 431-6045<tel:%28239%29%20431-6045>; email: steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net<mailto:burtsaunders@colliergov.net>; pennytaylor@colliergov.net<mailto:pennytaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net<mailto:WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net»; andysolis@colliergov.net<mailto:andysolis@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net<mailto:DonnaFiala@colliergov.net»; KlatzkowJeff <JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net»; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net<mailto:nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net>; michaelbosi@colliergov.net<mailto:michaelbosi@colliergov.net> Cc: Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com»; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com<mailto:ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com>) <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com<mailto:ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com» Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi,This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED, TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? 2 The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law <image001.jpg> Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com> www.napleslaw.com<http://www.napleslaw.com> This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us (collect) at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination,forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net<mailto:burtsaunders@colliergov.net>; pennytaylor@colliergov.net<mailto:pennytaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net<mailto:WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net»; andysolis@colliergov.net<mailto:andysolis@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net<mailto:DonnaFiala@colliergov.net»; R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com<mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com>> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change 3 Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci <image002.png> Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635<tel:%28239%29%20596-2635>; Fax: (239) 431-6045<tel:%28239%29%20431-6045>; email: steve@braccilaw.com<mailto:steve@braccilaw.com> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 4 LykinsDave From: R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Steve Bracci; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFY PASSII)OMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTOR E S,4T LAAW 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 1 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbandersonnapleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci • r- N.`\ Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 2 LykinsDave From: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 2:38 PM To: R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Board—this is in response to Mr. Anderson's email below. I believe you should ask Mr.Anderson to clarify what he means when he states: "The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong." The impression left by Mr.Anderson is that the prior 254 site plan was approved by the county, and that the new presently pending 215 unit site plan now reduces the approved site plan. Mr. Anderson should clarify whether the county ever approved a 254 site plan, or whether he is instead just referencing a concept plan on a sheet of paper that was never approved. Sincerely, Steve Bracci Noi+** Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; i andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com>; Richard Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com) <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however,the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED, TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFY PASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAY' 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson(a�napleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 2 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net;pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna<DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson<rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci f : w Nett Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 3 STEVEN J.BRA.CCI, PA A Professional Association Attorney at Law 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102 Naples,Florida 34109 Ph: (239)596-2635 Fax: (239)431-6045 steve@braccilaw.com www.braccilaw.com July 5,2017 VIA E-MAIL jeffklatzkow@,colliergov.net Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Collier County Attorney's Office 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples,Florida 34112 Re: Vanderbilt Reserve—Wolf Creek PUD Insubstantial Change Request Vanderbilt Reserve—SDP Application for 215 unit subdivision per Permit Tracking#PL20160000157 Dear Jeff: On behalf of the Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members, the purpose of this letter is to suggest that Vanderbilt Reserve is improperly seeking a piecemeal"insubstantial change" to the Wolf Creek PUD as part of its overall effort to obtain an SDP for a 215 unit residential subdivision. The SDP application documents are referenced at Permit Tracking #PL20160000157. In order for Vanderbilt Reserve to obtain that SDP,it requires not only a reduction of its preserve area,but also an increase in its residential density. The increase in density requires a"substantial" change to the Wolf Creek PUD pursuant to LDC Sect. 10.02.13.E.1.b,rather than the currently requested insubstantial change. For whatever reason, both staff and the owner/developer are ignoring the fact that the presently requested 215 units far exceeds the density allocated to the Vamderbilt Reserve property pursuant to the PUD. Not only do Vanderbilt Reserve's proposed 215 units exceed its overall allocated density,but the 115 dwelling units(plus 4 partial units)shown on what is known.as the "Mederos"property far exceeds the 80 units that were allocated to the Mederos Parcel pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 2007-46. At last week's hearing on Vanderbilt Reserve's insubstantial change application to amend the Wolf Creek PUD to reduce the preserve area,you correctly advised the Board that the Wolf Creek PUD was "balkanised"'back in 2007. In other words, rather than looking at the PUD's density as a whole,certain parcels were treated by the BCC as sub-parcels and allocated specific unit densities. This includes what is known as the"Mederos"property which, under Ordinance 2007-46, was assigned 80 development units. This same "Mederos"parcel is where the bulk of preserve is situated which the Developer/owner is seeking a reduction. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Page 2 Mr. Yovanovich spoke at the June 27 PUD amendment hearing and gave his recollection of residential density for the Mederos property given his past involvement in that matter back in 2007. Mr. Yovanovich stated: "What I do know is that right now, the way the PUD is written, there is a limitation of density on what was known as the Mederos parcel of 80 units. So as long as they don't build more than 80 units pursuant to this change in area that they're making available to themselves, we don't have a dispute. If they want to put more than 80 units on that,we do think it's inconsistent with the PUD...." The fact is, Vanderbilt Reserve does want to put more than 80 units on the Mederos property, as evidenced by its pending SDP application showing 115 units (plus 4 partial units) on that parcel. Given your statement to the Board acknowledging "balkanized" density within the Wolf Creek PUD, and Mr. Yovanovich's accurate acknowledgment that there is an 80 unit density maximum on the Mederos property, it would seem that the presently pending insubstantial change application to the Wolf Creek PUD is procedurally improper. We believe that the owner's PUD application should have been for a "substantial" change to the PUD under LDC Sect. 10.02.13.E.1.b. This would then properly allow the Board of County Commissioners to review this matter in its entirety, rather than reviewing it piecemeal and thus denying the Commissioners an opportunity to see the complete picture that the preserve is being reduced to accommodate a density increase. It is apparent that staff has not provided the Commissioners with any information regarding the pending 215-unit Vanderbilt Preserve SDP application. This approach does not best serve Collier County and its citizens. Looking beyond just the four corners of the "Mederos" property, the remainder of Vanderbilt Reserve is situated on what is known as "Parcel 3b,"which by our calculations has a maximum density of 24 dwelling units (or in any event, not more than 48 dwelling units based on 4 units per acre), capping the total allowed units within Vanderbilt Reserve at 104 units (or in any event, not more than 128 units). This is far less than the 215 units requested by Vanderbilt Reserve under its presently pending SDP application. For an understanding of the history of density on both "Parcel 3b," as well as the "Mederos" property, see the timeline and supporting documents attached hereto. We believe that the failure to properly address the need for increased density as part of the PUD amendment resulted in the concern and confusion justifiably expressed by certain board members at the June 27 meeting. This concern and confusion will likely continue until such time as the developer/owner's PUD amendment application properly addresses both the preserve reduction and the density issue. It would seem that at the July 11 meeting, the interests of the Board and the public would be best served by tabling the PUD insubstantial change request until such time as the developer/owner follows the proper PUD substantial change amendment process. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Page 3 Please feel free to contact me if you wish to further discuss this matter. Sincerely, STEVEN J. BRACCI,PA Steven J. Bracci, Esq. cc: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Bruce Anderson, Esq. Client fgg fi L NVld 30VNIVNO ! ^__ _, _ O O I'� I $ tfY'fE V309 Dm.3.1.1ris4 ONIQVii`J'9NIAVdd -_— _ 8 et (V ('i; O Flip i .11:102131N303A11flO3X3'M'N 99 1 _ S + � N Of ill'1118a3oNVA 1380S 3Aa3S3a ,..t., __ —(f $ 3 P o 7- r Z - co1:g!ti1:I ,.. 1118213aNdA—� f .... ":' ��;! I I j I,I I�I .t] t6 .. . , «,: I i 1' eli W z d ti 9 Y Yw4Y 9 »9Y ! I 7 y F q 'r la O { H_III 9 8!S 1 7@ 9 9 g s a I f n 1p 0 ", ,,, Jaad! :1- 1 € 1, 5 3 IIIIUti111111 mi t1111111111ttt1111i1111mim 1 ItImwm IsertmiNl S l; i It P 1.; a k Q 1$1 - t lmmilllit1111llttt11111111I1111mommllll �III�l�man 1l�� •t 1 �_ a O. 1 1 1 1 1 m;t 3 1 1I ' Q a ; ; iiII .I 'IIII ,III, 11II AlI11W— , 11■� 3 ill 111111iiIIllli. If Y fill 1 ,.i§g yy if,' i 1 :'11 ,;;I i111 ,.;yy' ii a � i 7' ( 1 I 111 1 � �ii gii�a� € i E E E ;ill g'FICA a k „« *`� wn. .., 1! i E g 11 di 1ii 1111 i q!r °ilt13 ..a , "11liaisiaali a Ff ? . i, `'.: 0 *c - U) Tr — tls zit k 1 s 6.4,1 21- s. awl 1 , _ 44111M- :a,i + �ifitet �1EG . 2 2 2122 2 s: • It _t't:!!=..�5 1 ti,) _ + +,�yy��jj�! ti�i�ii-iil _ 1. 1L J.__—;11;;;,-_-=a m.-........--- , c, tv ." "11111111"9111r7 1.... •,.......etr2"....2:-;;*.t ..t..n..-nr.`!-..f......I' 2.e......."Airialrar..""—„ii .."....."'.-,..4), r..,--7.**,......,ewt7.,1 4 1 ,..a. z it11 1i iiii 410 a { if nrr � � ' U U o u) d "' .;f; :Hil `" .:j ?1 :, I _ - ,� VII . it I',9 `y ycr) V :II c co e, itO -: - z.-z.I' Re- , y iii _ , 1 �� tilira't ;i t I as 3 O n -.. nr� It- 11'"- la co t a) co P, a all 7+; !p� ,. cam o Q. �( - - . u 76 r: �:1-gin ►;�`; _ i «�}®� } 1oi®1; ' v;eiej+ ;®fie► ', _ 1:1 PI-t- -fill: :11': els# iec: i — M' fid --111- it itr am- :paiali,katmiitavigili m ;• el , 7 i'C _at , loim t;,i, ; I pi tB ®19{®f Obi 4 I 4: r �1' E "x./ ! 11 i air nit . -r-Fri T 1 = i._� hint 1 ;;I -! �, 46 F: :,If . I I II a i tr ,3 1,el t ;I #� " ta fIX11 • , - 0: i ...• !1 ; _! , i i .l J 1 Ia f 1_ iia t, ( O M X11 71 t �1� i 41 :- ' ri •• "II um Z14' Ai lintel rrilleggillistsig w lit !I Alinmut . c • 2 0. ca -1: riii -t,iprz 1�11,1 : IR , 11,1 I . sit i � liE4an. A ) I 1� i wo ru w ' a Commissioner, Pertinent pages from County records have been attached in hopes of allowing a better understanding of the Wolf Creek PUD specifically with regards to density allocation, the proposed Vanderbilt Reserve site plan and offsite improvements. A) History of density allocation in Wolf Creek RPUD: Sept 23, 2003 - Ordinance 2003-45 - Wolf Creek PUD established - 147.69 acres with 591 dwelling units approved and maximum permitted density of 4 dwelling units per acre - no allocation to any specific parcel or development but separate parcels delineated August 23, 2004 - Cost Sharing Agreement entered into OR 3635: Dwelling units assigned to parcels - note parcel numbers for CSA are different than those in County WCPUD document Upon execution of the agreement there was an immediate transfer of dwelling units from parcels 4, 5 & 6 to parcel 1 Following that transfer, the owner of parcel 1&2 had a limited time option to purchase additional density from the owner of parcels 7, 8 & 9, and this option expired in 2005 Density only transferable with written permission of owner of property losing density Runs with the land - owner is property owner May 22, 2007 - Ordinance 2007-46 - Mederos 20 acre parcel added to WCPUD BCC minutes May 22-23, 2007 pages 70-71 80 dwelling units requested for now Vanderbilt Reserve Parcel 9 no density bonuses requested, density of 3.99 80 dwelling units specifically allocated to the —20 acres which is now the Vanderbilt Reserve Parcel 9 - pg 17 Ord 2007-46 states "80 dwelling units approved in the the 20 acres being added" May 14, 2013 - Ordinance 2013-37 - Scenic Woods and a portion of Palermo Cove brought into WCPUD 83 dwelling units specifically assigned to parcels 1A-3A density was assigned, thus only usable by those parcels page 11 Ord 2013-37 Minutes from CCPC dated March 21, 2013 pigs 53-54: County and developer lawyers worked together to construct verbiage that would specifically allocate the 83 dwelling units that were being added to parcels 1 A- 3A only and limited the density in 1 A-3A such that they could not increase their density by taking dwelling units from those already present in WCPUD - thus, no pool of dwelling units in WCPUD, they were all allocated to specific parcels by the CSA and the subsequent WCPUD amendments in 2007 and 2013 - see chairman's concerns - the allocation was a purposeful intent by the county Observations: All dwelling units within WCPUD have been specifically allocated to parcels - there are no "free"dwelling units within a PUD pool For those parcels party to the CSA, the dwelling units run with the land and the owners The CSA differentiates between developer and owner A developer does not have any claim to dwelling units other than to those allocated to land that he personally owns Dwelling units governed by the CSA cannot be transferred without written permission from the owner losing density Based upon the CSA allocations, there are 103 dwelling units allocated to Black Bear Ridge parcels that have not been used and are controlled by the individual lot owners not the developer- these cannot be transferred without written authorization from the lot's owner Vanderbilt Reserve parcel 9 of WCPUD or parcel 3 of the CSA is allocated 80 dwelling units by OR 2007-46 and approved for a density of 4 Vanderbilt Reserve parcel 3B of WCPUD being — 12 acres or—60% of parcel 4 of the CSA would be allocated 24 dwelling units based upon acreage (there are 40 units total allocated to parcel 4 by the CSA, which is parcel 3A and 3B of the WCPUD) Conclusions: The county has recognized the CSA allocation of dwelling units within WCPUD and further, it has allocated additional dwelling units to the PUD according to parcel in all subsequent ordinances/PUD amendments B) The Vanderbilt Reserve Site Plan Observations:The proposed site plan for Vanderbilt Reserve shows 215 dwelling units total on the two parcels making up the development The southern parcel (#9 of WCPUD) has 115 dwelling units platted and 4 partial units The southern parcel (#9 of WCPUD) is only allocated 80 units by OR 2007-46 The northern parcel (#3B of WCPUD) has 96 dwelling units platted and 4 partial units The northern parcel is allocated 24 dwelling units by the CSA based upon acreage it consists of -12 acres, which is-60% of the total acreage of parcel #3 WCPUD (parcel #4 of CSA) - which was allocated 40 dwelling units by the CSA, therefore based upon acreage, 3B would be allocated 24 dwelling units by the CSA Conclusions:The proposed site development plan for Vanderbilt Reserve has platted density not available or approved C) Offsite Improvements for Wolf Creek PUD - PristineNanderbilt Beach intersection Observations: Ordinance 2003-45 - WCPUD Master Plan Exhibit A shows a right turn in lane from Vanderbilt onto Pristine - note also right turn in lanes at Buckstone and into Mission Hills - these have been constructed The right turn in lane from Vanderbilt onto Pristine is present on all of the Master Plan exhibit A's through OR 2013-37 2004 CSA- OR 3635 Pgs 1696-1697 Phase I Budget for Black Bear Ridge shows line items for offsite improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection with monies to be allocated for WB Rt, EB Lt turn lanes as well as signalization There is a note under assumptions: "Vanderbilt Beach Rd temporary turn lanes not required (i.e. payments to county to build improvements to support project and to built as part of 6 lane improvements)." 2005 Construction Escrow Agreement with County for Subdivision Improvements Improvements set forth in the "Estimate" by Grady Minor are required improvements by Collier County ordinances Offsite improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection included WB Rt and EB Lt turn lanes as well as signalization - these were "required" The cost of these improvements were funded by the construction loan agreement - with a $3,057,906.50 construction loan held in a specific account The county had the right to utilize the funds for construction of the required improvements if the developer failed to complete them The requirements were binding upon the Developer's successors Google Maps - if you use google maps to look at Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd through Rt 41, the Pristine Drive/Vanderbilt Beach Rd intersection appears to be the only intersection that does not have a right turn in lane Conclusions: At the Vanderbilt/Pristine intersection a west bound right turn in lane and east bound left turn lane as well as signalization of the intersection was required from the beginning The County required the Developer of BBR to construct these offsite improvements - the most recent developer There was an Escrow agreement funded with >$3 million dollars to fund infrastructure which included the offsite improvements The improvements were not made The county was responsible for supervising the completion of the infrastructure improvements required of the developer The county did not exercise it's option to utilize the escrow funds to complete the required improvements The bond is still available (communication from county) The required improvements are the responsibility of the developer not the current homeowners of BBR and if the developer did not complete them, then the county had the means and funds available Thank you, OR: 3635 PG: 1677 construction of Segment 2 shall be deemed to be the payment of said owner(s)fair share of the cost of the North-South Road with respect to Parcel 3. 7. Wolf Creek PUD. (a) Allocation. The Wolf Creek PUD encompasses Parcel 1, Parcel 2,Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive, and Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. The Wolf Creek PUD permits 591 residential dwelling units. Unless otherwise provided herein, density shall not be transferred from one parcel to another within the Wolf Creek PUD without prior written permission of the owner of the property losing density. The Wolf Creek PUD allocated the 591 residential units as follows and as shown on Exhibit"F"attached hereto and made a part hereof: Parcel 1-64 units; Parcel 7-41 units; and all other parcels in the PUD- 81 units each. Upon the execution of this Agreement, 41 dwelling units each shall be automatically transferred from each of Parcels 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6, at no cost, to Parcel 1, with a total resulting transfer of 123 units to Parcel 1. Accordingly,the number of residential units allocated to Parcel 1 under the Wolf Creek PUD shall be 187. (b) Option to Purchase Additional Density. The owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ("Purchaser")shall have the option to purchase(in addition to the density allocated to Parcel 1 and Parcel pursuant to subsection (a) hereof) from the owner of Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive, ("Seller")up to 92 dwelling units which have been allocated'', -+ . 15. 1: -ction (a) hereof to Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. Said option may be exec . ,. •... •., re than two transactions on or before December 31, 2005 ("Expiration p' ' .7 he•purchase p. e, ch individual dwelling unit shall be $500.00. In the event Purchaser,elec o exercise this option, chaser shall,on or before the Expiration Date, notify Seller of the number o L't-pureha§ i. Clo 'ng\if any such purchase of dwelling units shall occur within 20 dayi ofheller's re a• notic= from P chser. The purchase price shall be paid in cash, wired funds, or 4 cas r s c a Mir �T` an pffice in Collier County,Florida or such other method as may be all -1,tabl t 1 `• 1:/'s sole!!discretion. Seller shall have the sole discretion to determine fic5'i ., .4. ling..1 i ati a$signed. Purchaser shall pay all costs associated with the trarer Sof dwelling units. 's o do 1 terminate on midnight of the Expiration Date and be of no fid\ orce and effect. P `�� C) (c) Contingency. In , t any statute,law�. ce,resolution,rule, or regulation is adopted and enforced by the state, u ty • _ •a •= entity (or any agency or department thereof) that would have the effect of ,,6 I. ; `1 ,-I a, 'file number of dwelling units that can be constructed within the Wolf Creek PUD(in its eii irefy ,the parties agree that Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be collectively allocated 33%of any such temporary allocation and Parcels 4 through 9 shall be allocated 67% of any such temporary allocation; provided,however,that such temporary allocation shall not have the effect of reallocating density among the parcels. For the purposes of this paragraph only, the term "temporary"shall mean for a period of no more than twelve(12)months. 8. Native Vegetation. Unless otherwise agreed by the owners of the various Parcels, all Parcels within the Wolf Creek PUD shall be designed to stand alone. All Parcels with indigenous native vegetation, as determined by Collier County, will be required to preserve or replant 25% of such native vegetation, as described in Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, or in the event of a repeal of said section, such other section of the Collier County Land Development Code controlling the same subject matter. Each of the Parcels shall provide for its own native vegetation requirements as shown within the Collier County approved environmental impact study that was submitted in conjunction with the Wolf Creek PUD rezoning petition,unless otherwise agreed to by any one or more Parcels owners. Parcels providing in excess of 25% native vegetation can transfer such credit to another Parcel under different ownership only upon written agreement of the property owner transferring the excess credit. 6 OR: 3635 PG: 1685 provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make it or its application valid and enforceable, and the validity and enforceability of all other provisions of this Agreement and all other applications of any such term or provision shall not be affected thereby,and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 17. Modifications. Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement may not be modified in any respect whatsoever or rescinded, in whole or in part, except by the consent of the owner(s)of the Parcels, and then only by written instrument duly executed, acknowledged by all of said owners,and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. No modification or termination of this Agreement shall affect the rights of any lienholder of any portion of any of the Parcels unless the lienholder consents in writing to the modification or termination. 18. Covenants Running with Land. All of the provisions of this Agreement,including all of the benefits and burdens described herein, shall run with the Parcels and shall be binding upon the Parcels and the successors in title to each of the Parcels. The rights and obligations in and to this Agreement are and shall be assignable to any and all successors in title to each of the Parcels, without the necessity of a formal assignment. However, should any party acquiring title to any of the Parcels request a formal assignment,the parties hereto agree to cooperate in the approval and execution of any such assignment. 19. Interpretation of Ownef. i i pressly provided, the term"owner" when used in this Agreement shall be dee 4. .• i e and m ,�er and the owner's successors,assigns, or successor in title. \ / l 1 20. Integration. 's�4'gre • .em...ies e�entire under tanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein,an the , ,, - : ., - s e all prior understandings. 21. Counter., - 1irr.gr-- m` .', exec a inJ number of count 'Y! erparts,each of which shall be deemed to be : asp agaifis -. , o ture appears thereon and all of which shall together constitute d the same instrum` . ej s"--1' 1 a0 22. Recording. This' : ent shall be recor. I Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 04-, TSE GIRD • {SIGNATURES BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE) 14 *** 011: 3635 PG: 1699 *** INITIAL DENSITY ALLOCATION-WOLF CREEK PUD Wolf Creek PUD's Initial Residential Unit Allocation 1446 #581 r, L. .81 4" f #1i ?#4 #7 a Dagens Lime 81km 41 alry .. Nags&Land Ta„c Lama i.�a r... 4 ° i :.„ AC B1 .:e u x\�- Mission HIM 1 84 A-2 VandrHt Beach Road A-1 Total of 147.69 acres and 581 Units EXHIBIT"F" 28 May 22-23, 2007 Will Dempsey and Rick Mercer. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Pritt? MR. PRITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Robert Pritt. I'm here on behalf of Prime Homes, LLC -- Prime Homes at Portofino Falls. It's owner of parcel number five, which we would like to add to the existing Wolf Creek PUD. I have with me -- I think you've named all the names, but Dave Underhill is also with us in case you need to have anybody testify as to planning, zoning, engineering matters, and we also have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Abbo, who's the founder of the company here today, as well as Larry Abbo, Linda Socolow and also Steve Greenfield? As has been said, Rich Yovanovich is also here. I believe that Mr. Hoover is here also on behalf of the Catalina Land Group, owner of the balance of the Wolf Creek PUD. The background here is that we're requesting a rezone from rural agricultural and planned development, planned unit development, to residential planned unit development zoning district. And as was said, we're just going to add 20.26 acres and are requesting 80 dwelling units to be added to the existing Wolf Creek PUD. This would make for a total of 167.96 acres and a total of 671 dwelling units, which may be single or multifamily dwellings, and we also are going to amend the PUD document and the associated master plan. As also has been said in the introduction, the proposal is to reduce the maximum height of multifamily structures from 42 feet and three stories to 38 feet and two stories and to eliminate some uses. The location of the property is on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road approximately one half mile west of Collier Boulevard, and we can show you that on the map. This map here, ifs kind of hard Page 70 May 22-23, 2007 to read, but what I wanted to point out here is that the -- let's see. We've got Vanderbilt road -- Beach Road here and 951 there. Thank you. And I heavily marked -- right there in the middle is parcel number five marked in red so that you can see what the situation is. The heavy black line that goes all the way around the existing PUD goes clear around -- clear around to the other side and back, carved out this -- either carved out or left out this parcel which is right smack dab in the middle. And to everybody's credit, they are trying to put this together with the existing PUD rather than create some other type of PUD or new PUD and -- so that we can have a real unified project and project area. A couple things to keep in mind. And this is all in the staff report. I know that you all have read the staff report and all the documents, but the -- in this subdistrict there's a base density of four dwelling units per acre. There's a limit of a maximum of 16 units per acre under the density rating system. And we're not asking for any density bonuses and there are no density reductions that are applicable. So the site would be eligible for four dwelling units per acre, and the requested density is actually 3.99. I'm not sure how it worked out that way. But we're asking for the four units per acre essentially. The transportation element. It's been found consistent with the transportation element. There are contingencies concerning concurrency and -- that are in the PUD document that has -- that was discussed and handled at the Planning Commission hearing and -- so that is in the PUD document that you have in front of you. One thing that is a little bit different, and that's the affordable housing impacts. The request had contained no provisions to address affordable or workforce housing demands that may be created. We went through the Planning Commission hearing process. It was Page 71 H. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the RPUD Master Plan shall be considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long- Range Transportation Plan. I. When ingress and egress improvements are determined, as necessary, right-of-way and compensating right-of-way shall be provided for and in conjunction with said improvements. J. All work within the Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a right-of-way permit. K. All internal access ways, drive aisles and roadways, not located within County right-of-way shall be privately maintained by an entity created by the developer, its successor in title, or assigns. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. L. The proposed loop road located around the Mission Hills development, that would provide access for the project onto Collier Boulevard, is conceptually shown on the RPUD Master Plan and shall be a public roadway. It shall be designed and constructed to a minimum 30 mile per hour design speed. The construction costs of the loop road shall not be eligible for impact fee credits, but the developer of the roadway may be able to privately negotiate "fair share" payments or reimbursements from neighboring property owners. M. No building permits shall be issued for any of the additional 80 units approved in the 20 acres that is being added to this PUD until such time as Vanderbilt Beach Boulevard between Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and Livingston Road, and CR 951 between Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road are substantially complete. N. Within 30 days of the adoption date of this RPUD rezone, the developers owning the property fronting Pristine Drive shall convey in fee simple to Collier County the right-of-way necessary for the two-lane construction of Pristine Drive. Each developer shall convey 30 feet for the Pristine Drive right-of-way. The anticipated width of the right-of-way is 60 feet. The turn lanes required for each individual project shall be accommodated within the project's boundary. Revised 5/31/07 to reflect BCC changes 17 general configuration of which is also illustrated by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A- 1". B. Areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1" shall be constructed as lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof may be constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be in the same general configuration and contain the same general acreage as shown by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1". Minor modification to all tracts, lakes or other boundaries may be permitted at the time of subdivision plat or SDP approval, subject to the provisions of the LDC. C. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1", such easements as necessary (utility, private, semi-public) shall be established within or along the various Tracts as may be necessary. 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USES A maximum of 6-71-754 residential dwelling units shall be constructed in the residential areas of the project. The gross project area is 4696188.78± acres. The gross project density shall be a maximum of 3.99 units per acre if all 67-1-754 dwelling units are approved and constructed-. A minimum of 83 dwelling units will be assigned to parcels 1A - 3A due to the additional acreage being added to the PUD by the owner of those parcels. In addition, parcels 1A - 3A shall be entitled to incorporate any other density owned by the developer of these parcels. There shall be a maximum density of 163 dwelling units on parcels 1A- 3A. 2.5 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a record plat, and/or condominium plat for all or part of the RPUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the RPUD Master Plan, Collier County subdivision rules, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan and Exhibit "A-1" RPUD Master Plan Amended, constitutes the required RPUD development plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with RPUD approval, a subdivision plat or SDP, as applicable, may be submitted for areas covered by the RPUD Master Plan. Any division of the property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the RPUD Master Plan Exhibit "A" and Exhibit '`A-1" -and LDC. C. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications to Collier County and the methodology for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. Words 5truok threegh are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 11 of 26 March 21,2013 Page 6. That's just a change to add a Parcel 2B.Page 7? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There are so many different owners,and I don't know if they're all represented here. I just want to make sure that all the owners know,and you're not trying to do something over them on this. I see Prime Homes—or Premier. I see Buckstone. I know Stock is in there. 3B--okay. I found out. That's Prime Homes.I just want to know— COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What page are you on,Diane? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,she's on Page 7. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was on Page 7 of 25 when they're trying to break down all the parcels. So I was going back and forth trying to find out who owned what. MR.ARNOLD: Well,what we were hying to do there is,in the addition language,was really to reflect the parcels under the joint ownership for the property we're talking about today and not changing the other. I know the ownership has changed for the others,but we didn't update the other ownership within the PUD. We just updated what's under the unified control of the application today that we're in for the changes on,which would be the Parcels IA, 1B,2A,2B,and 3A. And those were previously the Hoover and Catalina Land Holdings,et cetera,and--so now we're reflecting that currently the ownership is Raffia Holdings of Naples,LLC,and the Wolf Creek Naples Holdings,LLC. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: It was really a clarification to reflect the part we're controlling and update that ownership. We didn't feel like we needed to update parcels that weren't subject to our control,which was kind of the theme for the changes we made,which is,let's not monkey with the rest of the PUD that we're not impacting,so— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to Page 8. Anybody have any questions on Page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9? Anything on 9?Wayne,can you explain why on the top of the page you added that verbiage? MR.ARNOLD: Yeah. At the top of the page,Mr.Strain,you asked me why we added the phrase "along portions of the property boundary." And that's with respect to the water management system.And it says that—it,in essence,it says there will be a permitted berm constructed along--it basically assumes it's along the entire perimeter,and that's not in--that's not exactly true,especially now that we're combining portions of this PUD with the development of Palermo Cove. So there won't be a continuous perimeter berm,and I don't believe there was ever intended to be one. It really--it's probably a misstatement of the time. I mean,there is a perimeter berm in place,but it's not a continuous perimeter berm through,because we take inflows or water through other projects,or from other projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: So it's a clarification,really. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on Page 9? If not,Page 10? Anybody have issues on Page 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 1I? MR.ARNOLD: Page 11,I don't know what other changes you may have,but we've been talking to the County Attorney's Office in reference to Section 2.4. We had made reference to 163 units for this portion of the PUD that was described in parcels—the Parcels lA through 3A as we've referred to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. There was some new language I saw circulated,but I don't have it in this package. MR.ARNOLD: We did. We sent some Ianguage—I think if you'll flip it. Yeah. The other way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That must be a part of legal training,because there's some other attorney that does that all the time,too,Heidi. MR.ARNOLD: So this is language that Rich and Heidi worked on,and it's hying to capture that Page 53 of 85 March 21,2013 we're modifying and bringing in properties to our PUD. We think we control those units that we're bringing in. And then,of course,you've heard reference to another allocation agreement that was in place before this PUD amendment was revised. So the language here,in essence,says that we've got 83 units associated with what we're bringing in, and then there's,you know--I can't read it from here. P11 have to come over and read it if we want to read it into the record. But,in essence,the language is going to say,a minimum of 83 dwelling units will be assigned to the Parcels IA through 3A due to the additional acreage being added to the PUD by the owner of those parcels. And,in addition,Parcels 1 A through 3A shall be entitled to incorporate any other density owned by the developer of these parcels. There shall be a maximum density of 163 units on Parcels IA through 3A. And that's really for,I guess,protection of the other owners as well to make sure that we're not making a grab for more units than we think we're entitled to,nor are we going to put a bunch of density that was unanticipated on the parcels that were originally part of the agreement. So hopefully that works for everybody. I know that—I mean,obviously everything's subject to further wordsmithing,but I think that captures what we were trying to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was concerned earlier today that--I wanted to make sure that the additional density was captured by those parcels so that it wasn't spread to others who may not have expected it so—because that would be a change in intensity. And I think you've kept it that way,so that's good. Anybody else have any comments,questions? If not,let's go to Page 12. Now,this is an amendment to an existing PUD,so some of the language that we tried to correct in the Palermo can't necessarily apply to this because of the way—this product's already started.You've already got plats done and SDPs done and quite a bit. MR.ARNOLD: But I do think under Section 3.4(aX4),which is,again,the reference to the gatehouse,guardhouse,architectural features,et cetera— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all new. MR.ARNOLD: --that's new language that we added for Parcels 1A through 3A,and I think it's probably wise that we put in the same development standards that we talked about in Palermo Cove just for consistency purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's new language;I would agree. MR.ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? That's on Page 13. On Page 3--I mean,on Item 3 of that,you have carports shall be permitted within parking areas,and garages shall be permitted at the edge of vehicular pavements. With the setbacks and all the other standards for those carports and garages,I would assume,then, that the accessory-structure language on the tables that follow apply to those carports or garages;is that a correct assumption? MR.ARNOLD: I think so. That was language that currently exists,Mr.Strain. It wasn't new language we added if--ifs A3 that you're reading? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I was just curious,because we—that's the same kind of question that started our discussion on 4. But I think staff on that one—because carports would have to be accessory to units,that would be more or less your accessory standards that you would be looking at. I guess it could have been written better to begin with. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Didn't those come from the multifamily units? That's where you'd normally have a carport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's not restricted to them,but I mean,I would— COMMISSIONER VOMER: But this is a single-family dwelling project now,so it probably doesn't make any difference. Carports aren't germane,I wouldn't think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this applies to the entire Wolf Creek PUD. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Oh,yeah;that's right.Okay,yeah. Everybody else,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page 14,anybody have any issues? That's the existing language. And on Page 15 is the new language. And we have some corrections from the other document that need to be Page 54 of 85 b, ..... . .. u p 'Ifl .rr� is r 1 -. dmo l \__3��1. 11�t �n��11�1■�■1■ � i.®.�. .iQ1p _ l aany 7). moo., • _ .Hamm m..� 1 Nara- ... tM --.-.U.■..-. • inalSiu crossawawnwunwra.+n�• .moi a '"--n II ll'/11 te 4 i. 1 �..p 0 'u• _ . ' Til mei •�. �+�, i . S•I li I■ _ • p{'t)!Pi ,--1 - _--- . .,• Tiii" i,s !. ,t .„- MI ^-1 ..I.,O I lia n~ ElitIEI" _ E '..0' Wit`' 1 i,4..I ow- wyw : ao pi! Itq� N' 7. — �� , . a' it a� `J A {I ,..„......,.:,.-..,-„,:-.....---::„... ..1....: ,� . .i C I I�IIL ys( .!,,,,,,,,----.4.-- .- :;, / . e 1 --r."�— u— ?� l�.,, I c' zt m m mil Elm ter ��i � `� A� � x. ' • Mit riff 1 Tom' M Valli EZ Va, , :Iii � �!! Ilk.br ' IY11. ' ' l _Ii . . , !ntiM Y51.1 FBI %. • 4 , i l ME liar .' 'i 135VHd j. II AIM i i all�..I1li�'"-' I u r• u . . ' 1 3t'2 ii MO -fB i' ' rN IN`' , ti'. e Il i"• N - vl.taam) `� .-.. II ISVHd • r &e• F id n It a li p nit - , .tea �, �f� �l0 - I s®� Itry�l ` ' , w}2•S�II1�1' v� .f 7YJ `'z x.. g �fl - ® 9i� IiA o i 't°'.,rn" _ ��,�I g14 ,,�..�n iY+`r" i. pIsTill -II ip $� .-® Bmf •,, wz-i �q p t e .,,,-.,nil I� — NI ____,,,,-7...:11 talon.' ® piilistaI {{ I �:� if t� ;1 . ii a, ' ' of fir • i� ilio :it int '-"- mummo ..., ® Ntl .ii"" I i v.,. is <G e { Ili VII ........a=1; :!ll I,� {n �q : I ul I ... m .', V iiia �A1"• r i i �� -+-+ f a , Vis' alp i�� i 1 i. ,. 1 mil -*1401 _ sT410 212e ¢ `:, =-: ..ib -r ..........:=7.1.. -. 111 ,, .: arm. maps - -- _.7 .,,,,,..:=7,==... .% Iwo a.--R i SIP U ((W.Y 7WP i.. IL3111D 670/K L •V• 3 M3anuorr3 7IAI� HV'ld�ISVW and 6 111 . Gild x��x� 3'IOM ' ,. -;; SNI 'ONI?IVNI9N.Y NOSQIA ESQ �' ,.w '"-•‘' �.e.o. ®UM IEVoow WI1Th +iginten]rnv ,�F Wu IMO My. 1 1 1 i s ¢l r-- - �" � ---,, _- p—$ 9 i ga41_ N 1 I 11 11 � � a - g! 1 o qga p. w4.4 _ I -- ------ 0 ,—_-- _ 11` 6li k Ex-. ;iL !; j1j I � � ! 4 - � NI 1 11 1 Ill 1 II - --- 1 lit 11 4vic: 0 14,22„h...azum, _ ___ 1 II 'tet i il #f 4111.11 I 1_ g �It il N P g g M i 1 h I p ;4 ii 14 I, � 1 . 11 i . q,, i I i !4 // 1 :_ pi ISI I r ; 1 144.—-v..—.‘-- q i 1111 IiIhi II if II �" 1 31 ill 0 lilt $ II tIii i PI ----- I' Ii i =ii �i ii I 0 1 I ,11/1 ,i'I,l Als r P $ 14. I1i'] ll ffiir1 1} ii CRI"1111111 m ill z I'1l! W e dall ;if 311!�I . I .! 1111-xlip 11011 §1 Y ! 1 aI v 1 iI F g— a all ! Mali — _ L« � �„ — _ _ _ , F gMi ! tI J!JJiIJjJJi lli 11 I i 6 ! ! !hIIHJIOH1 aIt 1 i 1 ,8 :oil 111441241! , li i 12 ii fluiJ IJJ1IIfJJJ , " 1111" [li3s� aj 1 .r\\ .:, IIE iLV kr- � ,� V.� y r1i1 lq.3ii . . 1r N.,1 il 11 W '. lk ° ei i g • colli �i :`�fi\' ;1 g Ii ,. �a Is , o., it1 -... y 5 T— — — \\ ii ! \\`\. I X16 1 _ pp,° I I ;�\ ; _ 5 5y5�yg�y .�� A�v`� I II 1 Ri r l l , . 111 I ... ilk` 111 I 11 3: 11 1 J y $ 5 ` 5 ` \` i $ . c 5 a � r ,;k °{4 ii ' 3 1g 11 / . g 1: : .. ,--Q ,\A I,iil I� P . •,,; ` `�„` 111 1,— 1 i:,,, aNt1P4' 1 -3a It kIta ,L.__ ,,,,, ,,,,............ , 3 gli V. isle 1 W 1 I a I ! II I fa 1 A I 11 i '1 11 1 wl i 1 Ulorma".ositnai ala MI 111 Standards, current edition, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the LDC. B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all development points of ingress and egress from any County collector or arterial roadway. Said lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first permanent certificate of occupancy (CO). C. Site-related improvements (as opposed to system-related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. D. Road Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with applicable County ordinances and the LDC. E. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to: safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. F. Interconnections shall be required by Collier County staff as a condition of SDP approval. G. The developer shall be responsible for its proportional share of the cost of a traffic signal system, or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement marking at any development entrance onto the County's collector/arterial roadway network, including both ends of the loop road, should a traffic signal be warranted. If warranted, upon the completion of the installation, inspection, burn-in period, and final approval/acceptance of said traffic signal it shall be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County, and will then be operated and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Department. H. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the RPUD Master Plan Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1, shall be considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Woff Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 23 of 26 OR: 3635 PG: 1696 Black Btar__Ridge-Phase I Budget Off-lte Improvements Item-North-South Outer Loop Road Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 AC 53,500.00 57,000.00 2 Silo Fence 2,800 LF 51.50 54,200.00 . 3 Fill 8,500 CY S9.00 S76,300.00 4 Final Grade I LS $6,500.00 56,300.00 5 Valley Gutter 2,700 LF 55.50 514,850.00 6 8'Limoroek Base(compacted and primed) 4,800 SY S7,50 $36,000.00 7 12-Stabilized Subgrade 5,750 SY 51.25 $12,937.50 8 3"Asphalt 4,800 SY 58.50 $40,800.00 9 Signing dt pavement markings 1 LS 56,500.00 96,500.00 . 1.0 Sodding 5,800 SY 51.50 58,700.00 11 5'Wide Concrete Sidewalk 1,500 SY S16.50 S24,750.00 12 4"Lonerock(under sidewalk) 1,500 SY 54.30 $6,750.00 13 Maintenance of Traffic I LS 52,500.00 52,500.00 Subtotal (T .. ;t "x $24+7,987.50 Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements antity Unit Price Total I Tutu Lanm Complete(WB Rt.EB Lt) -`'I�� $40,000.00 580,000.00 2 Signalladon -( J �' 4jp.000.00 5130,000.00 3 Side Drain Drainage(4 DBI,DBL ren 36')r L J�y}5000.00 535,000.00 4 Lighting CNN) I 'IR5,00'Ito 525 000.00 r 4,.J Sib-total 527/,000.00 Item-North-Sontb Outer p R d \— 1, Sanitary Sorel- atl UvltPtied Tatar 1 8"PVC Force Main(C-900 ,a7_,..012_,,,,,,$28,000.00 2 t'Plug Valve w/Box - , 1 r.abc\52,760.00 3 Hot Tap Future 16"Force .on ,'i 155,50000 Item-North-South Ovtet• .. Yom, . Water Maio ,`` Quaky y Unit/triceJ//' lbtal Hot Tap Existing 30"Rein( •. 1ptlleb f".,,,:r I (or alt jib and tap new 24" '4► / "e Drop t LS` S35t000AQ�(3;,000.00 2 12 PVC Water Main(CL 200) '4 1.400 I"F La` S $35,700.00 3 12'Gate Valve wBmr 'l 2 EA •..04 53,000.1H) 4 Fre Hydrant(Complete Assembly) (:),.4-., 2 FA ••,.r,.O6 54,800.00 S Permanent Bacterial Sample Point 2 - r--r--",^ ,,.,,.00 $1,000.00 6 Temporary Bacterial Sample Point CI' L.,„'`� ",,.00 5900.00 7 ArRelnseValve ' 51.550.00 53,100.00 Sub-Total ,..C./.:',1111','%',.;i i? ,r $83,500.00 Item-North-South Outer Loop Road- Drainage Quantity Unit Price Total I Control Structure 1 Eco 54,000.00 51,000.00 2 15"RCP 100 LF 523.00 52,300.00 3 18"RCP 350 LF 525.00 S11,750.00 4 24'RCP 1,200 LF $34.00 $40,800.00 5 Valley Gaiter Throat Inlet 6 EA $2,000.00 512,000.00 6 Grate Inlet 4 EA 51,700.00 $6,800.00 7 Junction Box 8 EA $1,850.00 514,600.00 8 15"Floral End Section I FA 5900.00 $900.00 Sab-Total U"". : s70,5s0.00 O19-SiteTetels ;y-X, t,3`••x;;.y: $728,97.50 1'14/2004 EXHIBIT"D"-Page 2 of 3 25 OR: 3635 PG: 1697 Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Assumptions Construction stake out excluded. Permit fees excluded. Impact fees excluded. Engineering fees excluded. Testing services excluded. Street lighting excluded(except VBR intersection). Conservation Area No mitigation,or replanting costs included(clearing only). Sewer �//^'`�� Sewer profile has been adjusted to include R Car j (r� service for the potential lots on the Comcastv Drainage 7„,L..), _ -1-' Water } Will provide water service stubs or2 'i • • 'Zip it,+� �' f"' Earthwork and Clearing tai - Fill from lakes is limited to onlyl C4$ nation depth below existing D' z • . endation. An average of 1.6 ft of fill over th developed site. 0 Rock excavation,rock crushing and 'natal incidental to the lake exca .._i C) IE t Paving T IL 1 � Sidewalk cost included in initial infrastructure. t Offsite Inner loop road to be built by others,including turn lanes to serve site(no costs assumed). Vanderbilt Beach Rd 6 lane improvements in place(I.e.force main). Vanderbilt Beach Rd temporary turn lanes not required(I.e.payment to county to build improvements to support project and to built as part of 6 lane improvements). %% ice: Qite ---JZt +-."...-C /6q, oy, EXHIBIT"D"-Page 3 of 3 26 CONSTRUCTION,MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS-(INFRASTRUCTURE) THIS AGREEMENT entered into this 30' day of August, 2005 by Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (hereinafter "Developer"), THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (hereinafter the "Board"), and Orion Bank, a Florida banking corporation(hereinafter"Lender"). RECITALS ORIGINAL A. Developer has, simultaneously with the delivery of this Agreement, applied for the approval by the Board of a certain plat of a subdivision to be known as:Black Bear Ridge. B. The subdivision will include certain improvements which are required by Collier County ordinances, as set forth in a site construction cost estimate ("Estimate") prepared by Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1. For purposes of this Agreement, the "Required Improvements" are limited to those described in the Estimate. C. Sections 10.02.05 and 10.02.04 of the Collier County Subdivision Code Division of the Unified Land Development Code require the Developer to provide appropriate guarantees for the construction and maintenance of the Required Improvements. D. Lender has entered into a construction loan agreement with Developer dated June 2, 2005 (the"Construction Loan")to fund the cost of the Required Improvements. E. Developer and the Board have acknowledged that the amount Developer is required to guarantee pursuant to this Agreement is THREE MILLION FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50), and this amount represents 110% of the Developer's engineer's estimate of the construction costs for the Required Improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Developer, the Board and the Lender do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Developer will cause the water, sewer, roads, drainage, and like facilities, the Required Improvements, to be constructed pursuant to specifications that have been approved by the Development Services Director within 12 months from the date of approval of said subdivision plat. 2. Developer hereby authorizes Lender to hold THREE MILLION FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50) from the Construction Loan, in escrow, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The aizzeut Orion Bank account number for this account is 8500006690. Zor 3. Lender agrees to hold in escrow THREE MILLION FIFTY-SEVEN 4 At& doles SUP vi ttstos-- THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50) from the Construction Loan, to be disbursed only pursuant to this Agreement. Lender acknowledges that this Agreement shall not constitute a draw against the Construction Loan fund, but that only such funds as are actually disbursed, whether pursuant to this Agreement or a provision of the Construction Loan, shall accrue interest. 4. The escrowed funds shall be released to the Developer only upon written approval of the Development Services Director who shall approve the release of the funds on deposit not more than once a month to the Developer, in amounts due for work done to date based on the percentage completion of the work multiplied by the respective work costs less ten percent (10%); and further, that upon completion of the work, the Development Services Director shall approve the release of any remainder of escrowed funds except to the extent of $305,790.65 which shall remain in escrow as a Developer guaranty of maintenance of the Required Improvements for a minimum period of one (1) year pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the Agreement. However, in the event that Developer shall fail to comply with the requirements of this Agreement, then the Lender agrees to pay to the County immediately upon demand the balance of the funds held in escrow by the Lender, as of the date of the demand, provided that upon payment of such balance to the County, the County will have executed and delivered to the Lender in exchange for such funds a statement to be signed by the Development Services Director to the effect that: (a) Developer for more than sixty (60) days after written notification of such failure has failed to comply with the requirements of this agreement; (b) The County, or its authorized agent, will complete the work called for under the terms of the above-mentioned contract or will complete such portion of such work as the County, in its sole discretion shall deem necessary in the public interest to the extent of the funds then held in escrow; (c) The escrow funds drawn down by the County shall be used for construction of the Required Improvements engineering, legal and contingent costs and expenses, and to offset any damages, either direct or consequential, which the County may sustain on account of the failure of the Developer to carry out and execute the above-mentioned development work; and, (d) The County will promptly repay to the Lender any portion of the funds drawn down and not expended in completion of the said development work. 5. Written notice to the Lender by the County specifying what amounts are to be paid to the Developer shall constitute authorization by the County to the Lender for release of the specified funds to the Developer. Payment by the Lender to the Developer of the amounts specified in a letter of authorization by the County to the Lender shall constitute a release by the County and Developer of the Lender for the funds disbursed in accordance with the letter of authorization from the County. 6. The Required Improvements shall not be considered complete until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been • furnished to be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director for compliance with the Collier County Subdivision Regulations. 7. The County Manager or his designee shall, within sixty(60) days of receipt of the statement of substantial completion, either: a) notify the Developer in writing of his preliminary approval of the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of his refusal to approve the improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the Developer must fulfill in order to obtain the Director of the Required Improvements. However, in no event shall the Development Services Director refuse preliminary approval of the improvements if they are in fact constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. 8. Should the funds held in escrow be insufficient to complete the Required Improvements, the Board, after duly considering the public interest, may at its option complete the Required Improvements and resort to any and all legal remedies against the Developer. 9. Nothing in this Agreement shall make the Lender liable for any funds other than those placed in deposit by the Developer in accordance with the foregoing provision; provided, that the Lender does not release any monies to the Developer or to any other person except as stated in this Escrow Agreement to include closing the account or disbursing any funds from the account without first requesting and received written approval from the County. 10. The Developer shall maintain all Required Improvement for one year after preliminary approval by the County Manager or his designee. After the one year maintenance period by the Developer and upon submission of a written request for inspection, the Development Services Director shall inspect the Required Improvements and, if found to be still in compliance with the Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Lender's responsibility to the Board under this Agreement is terminated. The Developer's responsibility for maintenance of the Required Improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for and by the County. 11. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the Developer and the Lender. (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank-Signatures Begin on Next Page) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and the Developer have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives this 101' day of 414,i,2005. /14?„sY- /.... . DEVELOPER: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC, a Florida limited liability company i„rgoa ii. By: Catalina Land Group, (P '4,14 76?. Y .57 ' ) a Florida corporation, 111111111 its Manager (Print Name: fp'co-IL. r., t ) By: / ".4.?„,—e-----.,...,,, Wi l L. Hoover, President LENDER: Orion Bank, i„ a Florida banking corporation 0 , MA 4 A..146iftlirl e•- r---"- BY:(?Ga,47:•,e, ,,,r-e//". MilIliir L491 Name: ffrr get X. K Mt L L. ..•L (Print Name:; Brandy A. Rasehie Title: S "4 s ,C Pt'cE $9lf?9$t bet . ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA I2.YI6 -[;4. QCK,Clerks's-.. ...t_421 (A). 61-4•80C1k. u CIerl 4 C Chairman rS f griatti%4n.1,ya EO L) • Cy approved 4s•totfartri and legal sufficiency: \ci_ Assistant County At ey '� .} NiU nV 2 .,.. �1.........E ..4 •.11,0 SubdnIsson...... Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Off-site Improvements (PRISTINE DRIVE) %PROGRESS BUDGET Site Work •uantitv Unit Price Total AS OF 9-15-06 CONSUMED 1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 AC $3,500.00 57,000.00 100% $7,000.00 2 Silt Fence 2,800 1F $1.50 $4,200.00 100% $4,200.00 3 Fill 8,500 CY $9.00 $76,500.00 100% $76,500.00 4 Final Grade 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00 100% $6,500.00 5 Valley Gutter 2,700 IF $5.50 $14,850.00 100% $14,850.00 6 8"Limernck Base(compacted and primed) 4,800 SY $7.50 $36,000.00 100% $36,000.00 7 12"Stabilized Subgrade 5,750 SY $2.25 $12,937.50 100% $12,937.50 8 3"Asphalt 4,800 SY $8.50 $40,800.00 60% $24,480.00 9 Signing&pavement markings 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00 0% $0.00 10 Sodding 5,800 SY $I.50 $8,700.00 0% $0.00 11 5'Wide Concrete Sidewalk 1,500 SY $16.50 $24,750.00 0% $0.00 12 4"Limemck(under sidewalk) 1,500 SY $4.50 $6,750.00 0% $0.00 13 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 100% $2,500.00 Sub-total $247,987.50 Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements •uanti Unit Price Total 1 Turn Lanes Complete(WB Rt,EB Li) 2 LS $40,000.00 $80,000.00 0% $0.00 2 Signalization 1 LS $130,000.00 $130,000.00 0% $0.00 3 Side Drain Drainage(4 DBI,DBL run 36") 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 100% $35,000.00 4 Lighting 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 0% $0.00 Sub-total $270,000.00 Sanitary Sewer Quante Unit Price Total I 8"PVC Force Main(C-900 Class 200) 1,400 LF $20.00 $28,000.00 100% $28,000.00 2 8"Plug Valve w/Box 2 EA 51,380.00 $2,760.00 100% $2,760.00 3 Hot Tap Future 16"Force Main on VBR I LS $5,500.00 $5,500.00 100% $5,500.00 Sub-total • $36,260.00 Water Main Quantity Unit Price Total Hot Tap Existing 30"Reinf Cone Water Main 1 . (or alt m j/b and tap new prop 24"wm) I LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 100% $35,000.00 2 12"PVC Water Main(CL 200) 1,400 LF $25.50 $35,700.00 100% $35,700.00 3 12"Gate Valve w/Box 2 EA $1,500.00 $3,000.00 100% $3,000.00 4 Fire Hydrant(Complete Assembly) 2 EA $2,400.00 $4,800.00 100% $4,800.00 5 Permanent Bacterial Sample Point 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 100% $1,000.00 6 Temporary Bacterial Sample Point I EA $900.00 $900.00 100% $900.00 7 Air Release Valve 2 EA $1,550.00 $3,100.00 100% $3,100.00 Sub-Total $83,500.00 Drainage Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Control Structure I EA $4,000.00 $4,000.00 100% $4,000.00 2 15"RCP 100 IF $23.00 $2,300.00 100% $2,300.00 3 18"RCP 350 IF $25.00 $8,750.00 100% $8,750.00 4 24"RCP 1,200 IF $34.00 $40,800.00 100% $40,800.00 5 Valley Gutter Throat Inlet 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000.00 100% $12,000.00 6 Grate Inlet 4 EA $1,700.00 $6,800.00 100% $6,800.00 7 Junction Box 8 EA $1,850.00 514,800.00 100% $14,800.00 8 15"Flared End Section I EA $900.00 $900.00 100% $900.00 Sub-Total $90,350.00 Off-SiteTotals _ $728,097.50 59% $430,077.50 9/15/2006 LykinsDave From: Richard Yovanovich <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 3:48 PM To: R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Cc: Steve Bracci Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: Stock pf Buckstone Estates Purchase & Sale Agreement.pdf; Assignment of Construction Documents & Permits.pdf; Cost Sharing Agreement for the Development of Shared Access Road (OR 363....pdf Dear Commissioners, The petition before the BCC pertains to the modification of the preserve area. As I previously stated, it is my understanding that the Mederos parcel is limited to a density of 80 units. Mr. Bracci provided you with some of the legislative history supporting my understanding with regards to the PUD limiting density. Mr. Anderson stated to the BCC that the change in preserve area is related to increasing the lot size. However,the current plat submitted by his client clearly shows the purpose is to increase density beyond the PUD permitted density of 80 units for the Mederos parcel. Increasing density cannot occur through the Insubstantial Change process. Therefore, as long as the approval of the reduction in preserve size is conditioned upon development of the Mederos parcel being limited to 80 units, my client does not object to the petition filed by Mr. Anderson's client. I appreciate that the prior property owner had other site plans with a higher density. However, there is no evidence that the prior site plans were approved by the County. Accordingly, the prior site plans are irrelevant and not consistent with the PUD. As to the ownership of the 103 units, that is a private matter. We do not agree with Mr. Bracci's position on ownership of the units. Because Mr. Bracci spent most of his allotted time addressing ownership of the excess units, we are providing copies of some documents addressing the density rights in the PUD. The Purchase and Sale Agreement clearly identifies that Stock Development purchased the excess density. Also attached is an assignment document assigning developer rights to Black Bear Ridge Naples, LLC. Finally, the Cost Sharing Agreement addresses the excess density. At no time was the excess density assigned to Mr. Bracci's client. Mr. Bracci also spent a lot of time addressing the payment for the intersection improvements at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. My client has already agreed to pay the 30% share of Black Bear Ridge set forth in the Cost Sharing Agreement for the right and left turn lanes at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road.The 30%share was based upon an allotted density of 203 units. Only 100 units were built. Black Bear Ridge, LLC remains the owner of the unbuilt 103 units. The unbuilt units have not been assigned to the residents of Black Bear Ridge or to the Homeowner's Association. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Richard D. Yovanovich Esq. Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. COLEMAN AN 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 0 YOVA V H 300 Naples, Florida 34103 i (239) 435-3535 KESTER (239) 435-1218 (f) This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above email address.Thank you. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc:Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com>; Richard Yovanovich <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however, the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved. The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands. The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong. Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. 2 Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFYPASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTQa%FYt AT LAW 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson(cr�napleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. • From:Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent:Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci _ Ilr112 Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 3 ...� Exhibit "B" "1114 1• 1.PARTIES AND PROPERTY: S-bC*- eao�wut+�+Lit , F7ortc111- 4lr'k`t4'C (t'bi ii�j � ar,Y ('Buyer'') 2- agrees to buy and euckatone tntatas, LLC, a Florida iiuitad liability company ("Seiler") a• agrees to sell the property described as;Street Address: see attached lsgel deecriptioo 4• s' Legal Description: Baa Attached Legal Description f Intan able 7' end the following Raeen&Property:see Addend= • 8' G (all collectively referred 10 as the"Property")on the terms and conditions set forth below. °° , 1m E 2.PURCHASE PRICE: $ 3,S"ZSi 000, (a)Deposit held In escrow by Conroy, Conroy a Durant $ + '2 (+Escrow Agenti 1011001.3 o+W.ai'to eau.End eel=tscee) (1u1 w/in Z business days of Effective Date) 13' Escrow Agent's address: 2210 vandarbilt leash toad Phone: 239.499,5200 14- (tri-AriditiOnet'depi ttc-be-made A ef' -wt *--- etata E fectiver sate $ n/a 15' (14Ad bOi>akie-Friado32.6.CGrGw; gacit'wittsiR rciayCatler-EffactkAa.0+'+ta $ n/'° 8 (d)-Wit firmtlf1 X)(A"pArVI ' $ n/a '.r (e)Other n/n $ n/x to (f)All deposits will be credited to the purchase price at closing.Balatl0e to close,subject Co 1a• to adjustments and prorations,to be paid with localy drawn cashier's or official bank $ 3 i r 560 20 check(s)or wire transfer. 21 3.TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE;EFFECTIVE DATE:COMPUTATION OF TIME: Unless this offer is signed by Seiler and Buyer 22'and an executed Copy delivered to al parties on or before 20 says ,this offer will be withdrawn and the 23 Buyer's deposit.if any,will be returned.The time for acceptance of any counter Offer will be 3 days from the date the counter : 24 offer is delivered.The"Effective Date'of this Contract is the date on which the last one.of the Seiler and Buyer has signed and as or initialed and delivered this offer or the final counter offer.Calendar days will be used when computing time periods,excepilb as time periods of 5 days or less.Time periods of 6 days cc less will be computed without Including Saturday,Sunday.or national ?Ink 27 legal holidays.Any time period ending on a Saturday,Sunday,or national legal holiday will extend until 5:00 p.m.of the next `end 20 2e business day.'Time is of the essence In this Contract. 2s 4.CLOSING DATE AND LOCATION: within 30 days after the expiration of the Due V 30• (a)Closing Date: This transaction will be dosed oa.��eriod (Closing Date),unless specifically 31 extended by other provisions of this Contract.The Closing Date will prevail over all other time periods including,but not limited 32 to.Financing and Due Diligence periods.In the event Insurance underwriting Is suspended on Closing Date and Buyer is unable 33 to obtain property insurance, Buyer may postpone closing up to 5 days after the insurance underwriting suspension Is lifted. sol (b)Location:Closing wit take plate in Colli■r County,Florida,(If left blank, 3s closing wit take place In the county where the Property is located)Closing may be conducted by mal or electronic means. 30'Buyer f 801 C_...�end Seller( )(,-_�eckrbowtedge receipt of a copy of this page,which is Page 1 of 7 Pages. Egg.g CO-3 Rev.1003 0 21Xe F3arlda Association of lia&ross- Al festa%saved Thi+ .eltrar. 1. lidaasd to N. Conroy - Taloa a.saposent a *Silty, LUCl r1,e.traII/a0ti000140k.ova. 37 5.THIRD PARTY FINANCING: g/A sr R'S OB TIQN: Wthin days(5 days if -: blank)after Effective Date : er wit apply • third party fine ' . in an 35• t not exceed %oft : . dress price. .. with a fixed int: -st rate not to ex.::•- % per year an Initial variable I ,- t rate not to :,e_:• %,with points• commitment • •an fees not to=• .::. % er of the dpal amount,for a tie of -., . d amortized over . ,with addle.••-; terms as follows: 17 +3 B sr we timely provide - and all credit, • ployment,financial and o• : irtformaton :: •.nablyrequired by lender.B .-r 44• it use good faith art. =:sonable diig:r.:to()obtain Loan •.... : • ' da = 45 days if left blan • Effective r:to 15 (Loan Approval Da- ,( satisfy term: : • conditlone of the Loan • •. . :I,and(VI)clo-:the loan.Buyer w, keep Seller: • as Broker fully elf. ►-:. about loan :.4$' :tion status and aut • •_ • :mortgage ix• - and lender to d :all such int., :tion • 47 to Seller and - • : .Buyer wi •tiny Beller rrrunediatety u..• obtaining - - being rejected by. lender. 4a CANC • ! :If Buyer, :,•-: using good faith and tea-.•:..e clilgence,falls obtain Loan Appr. -I by Loan Ala. • - Date, ew Buyer r- within -- - (3 days If left blank)de : tten notice to. • stating Buyer :'..: waives this fi - ng 53 con •enty or dance- is Contract n Buyer does , i er,then Beller ma •: al this Con.: • dekvering w' - notice s to -, - at any ti : , -eafter.Unless this fired - contingency has• waived,this Conte shall remain su• . to the 52 •:tisfaction,by •eng,of those conditions of Lo . Approval related to a Property. • DEPOSIT(S) t purposes of Paragraph 5 •• :if Buyer has used •.•Pith and re:•....:.:diligence but..::not obtain ._ s4 Approval. .: Approval Date and . :.::': either party elects ,. .: .- this Con • = sat forth above• the lender fa :or • ss refines e dose on or before the Closing r: without fault on ; . - s pert,the Dep.: (s)shall be r: .. o Buyer,who-:upon as Moth •. MI be mimed from all fur : obligations under . Contract,except-• obligations staled -rein as su ' • . the sr t:.. . :;. of this Contract.If -,••- elects to termina: l is Contract as •rth above or Buyer :Is to use..•, faith or se r.: . :.a dlietence as set forth:.. :,Seller wiI be - , :i to retain the a:.. •,a)if the transaction •oes not dose, sr 6.TITLE: Beller has the legal capacity to and will convey marketable title to the Property by 6i statutory warranty deed se Cl other ,free of lens,easements and encumbrances of record or known to Selzer, 61 but subject to property taxes for the year of closing;covenants,restrictions and public utlilfy easements of record;existing zoning re and governmental regulations;and(1st any other matters to which title will be Subject) sr 54• es provided there exists at dosing no violation of the foregoing and none of them prevents Buyer's intended use of the Property as er • 57 (a)Evidence of The:The party who pays the premium for the title insurance policy will select the dosing agent andPsY for i'- se. the title search and closing services.Seller wit,at(check one) tit Seller's 0 Buyer's expense and within 7 days Cr after aa' Effective Date a or at bast days before Closing Date deliver to Buyer(check one) no- lB(1.)a title insurance commitment by a Florida licensed title Insurer and,upon Buyer recording the deed,an owner's policy r+ In the amount of the purchase price for fee simple title subject only to exceptions stated above.If Buyer is paying for the n evidence of title and Seller has an owner's policy,Seller will deliver a copy to Buyer within 15 days after Effective Date. re CI(ii.)an abstract of title.prepared or brought current by an existing abstract firm or certified as correct by en existing firm, re However,If such an abstract is not available to Beller,then a prior owner's title policy acceptable to the proposed insurer as 75 a base for reissuance of coverage may be used.The prior policy we Include copies of all policy exceptions and an update rs in a format acceptable to Buyer from the policy effective date and certified to Buyer or Buyer's closing agent together with n copies of all documents recited in time prior policy and in the update If such an abstract or prior policy Is not available to ra Seller then(.)above will be the evidence of tftfe. - 79 (b)Title Examination:Buyer will,within 15 days from receipt of the evidence of tine deliver written notice to Seller or title eo defects.Title wit be deemed acceptable to Buyer If(1)Buyer fails to deliver proper notice of defects or(2)Buyer delivers proper st- written notice and Seiler cures the defects within 15 days from receipt of the notice(*Curative Period). If the defects are L' 82 cured within the Curative Period,dosing MI occur within 10 days from receipt by Buyer of notice of such curing.Seiler may 83 elect not to cure defects if Seller reasonably believes any dated cannot be cured within the Curative Period.If the defects are s4 . not cured within the Curative Period,Buyer will have 10 days from receipt of notice of Seiler's Inabliity to cure the defects to as elect whether to terminate this Contract or accept title subject to exerting defects and close the transaction without reduction in es purchase price. e (c}Survey:(check applicable provlecns below) ae• 4i Seller will,within 7 days from Effective Data,delver to Buyer copies of prior surveys,plans,specifications,and eo- engineering documents,if any,end the following documents relevant to this transection; / 93' .prepared for Seller or in Setler'a 51' Buyer AO)f 1 and Seller f )( I ackrwwfedge receipt of a Copy of this page,welch la Page 2 of 7 Pages. cc-3 Rei-I Oro() 02009 Florida Assodrson of rtirorecs• AI rights tieeaied ?Xis mottos:. is 21asamsd to (J. f-'anr+r - !alma kaa.Qasout a !malty. 1.1.C1 w•v.traamamtiaadaak.00s. • ,n possession,which show all currently existing structures.In the event this transaction does nor dose,ell documents provided by Seller will be returned to Seller wtthln 10 days from the date this Contract is terminated. a4 6t Buyer will,at 0 Salters 6I Buyer's expense and within the time period stowed to deriver and examine title evidence, ss obtain a current certified survey of the Property from a registered surveyor.t the survey reveals encroachments on the os Property or that the improvements encroach on the lands of another. IX Buyer will accept the Property with existing 07• encroachments 0 such encroachments will constitute a title defect to be cured within the Curative Period. ore (d)ingress and Egress: Seller warrants that the Property presently has ingress and egress_ C.19 7.PROPERTY CONDIYSON: Seiler will deliver the Property to Buyer at the time agreed In Its present"as Is"condition,ordinary ,oro wear and tear excepted,and will maintain the landscaping and grounds in a comparable condition.Seller makes no warranties +a1 other than marketability of title.By accepting the Property'es is,"Buyer waives all claims against Seller for any defects in the ,n2 Property.(Check(a)or(b}) 103 0(a)As Is: Buyer has inspected the Property or waives any right to inspect end:• ;pts the Property in its'as is'condition. CA ,a' (alb)Due DIIIpenoe Period:Buyer we,at Buyers expense and within iee f days from Effective Date("Due Diligence los Period"),determine whether the Property is suitable,In Buyer's sole and absolute elscretbn,for Buyers Intended use and 108 development of the Property as specified In Paragraph S.During the Due Diligence Period,Buyer may conduct any tests, 107 analyses,surveys and investigations(`inspections')which Buyer deems necessary to determine to Buyer's satisfaction the ,os Property's eng'r:oaring,architectural,environmental properties;zoning and zoning restrictions;flood zone designation and ,ce restrictions;subdivision regulations;soil and grade;availability of access to public roads,water,aud other utilities;consistency 1.t. with local,state and regional growth management and comprehensive land use plans;evalebi0ty of permits,government approvals and licenses;compliance with American with Disabilities Act;absence of asbestos,sill and ground water 112 contamination;and other Inspections that Buyer deems appropriate to determine the suitability of the Property for Buyer's 113 Intended use and development.Buyer we deliver written notice to Sailer prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period 114 of Buyer's determination of whether or not the Property is acceptable.Buyer's failure to comply with this notice requirement „s vvr1l constitute acceptance at the Property in its present'as is'condition.Seiler grants to Buyer,its agents.contractors and es assigns,the right to enter the Property at any time during the Due Diligence Period for the purpose of conducting tnspectlone: 117 provided,however,that Buyer,its agents,contractors and assigns enter the Property and conduct Inspections at their own 113 risk.Buyer WI Indemnify and hold Seller harmless from losses,damages,costs,claims and expenses of any nature,including is attorneys'fees at al levels,and from liability to any person,arising from the conduct of any and all inspections or any work ,2o authorized by Buyer.Buyer will not engage in any activity that coved result In a mechanic's lien being filed against the Property 121 without Seller's prior written consent.in the event this transaction does not close,(1)Buyer will repair all damages to the le Property resulting from the Inspections and return the Property to the condition it was in prior to conduct of the Inspections,and 123 (2)Buyer will,at Buyer's expense,release to Seiler all reports and other work generated as a result of the Inspections.Should 124 Buyer deliver timely notice that the Property is not acceptable,Beller agrees that Buyers deposit will be immediately returned 125 to Buyer and the Contract terminated. rot (c)Walk-through Inspection:Buyer may,on the day prior to closing or any other lime mutuaty agreeable to the parties, :27 conduct a final'wale-through"inspection of the Property to determine compliance with this paragraph and to ensure that al 128 Properly is on the premises. 122 B.OPERATION OF PROPERTY DURING CONTRACT PF31lOD: Seiler we continue to operate the Property and any business 13) conducted on the Property in the manner operated prior to Contract and will take no action that would adversely impact the 131 Property,tenants,lenders or business,if any.Any changes,such as reatieeeraceet.eleaceettiat materially affect the Property or Buyers intended use of the Property will be permitted el only with Buyer's consent❑without Buyer's consent. *Seller contracting to sell a lot(s) t� 133 9.CLOSING PROCEDURE: 134 (a)Possession and Occupancy:Seiler will delver possession and occupancy of the Property to Buyer at closing.Seller will 13s provide keys,remote controls,and any security/access codes necessary to operate all locks,mailboxes,and security systems. ,ss (b)Costs:Buyer we pay buyer's attorneys'tees,taxes arid recording fees on notes,mortgages end financing statements and 137 recording fees for the deed.'6eIer wW pay seler's attorneys'fees, nd recording fees for documents needed 135 to cure title defects.if Seiler is obligated to discharge any encumbrance at or prior to closing and fails to do so,Buyer may use tze 132 purchase proceeds to satisfy the encumbrances. *awl toes an deed ,40 (c)Documents:Seller will provide the deed;b9 of sale;mechanic's len affidavit originals of those assignable service and sr maintenance contracts that will be assumed by Buyer atter the Closing Date and letters to each service contractor from Seiler 142'Buyer(SC)( 1 and Seller( )U a:knowiedge receipt of s mpr of this page,which Is Page 3 of 7 Pages. CC-3 Rod.10.09 0 2009 Florida Msooadion of REWORD* AA Rea riesseved Viet :hie wttrar■ Lo idoomtod to [J. Conroy - Was N m„wawd o *orally. LLCI w,r.trommetLoadaik.000. ies advising each of them of the sale of the Property and,If applicable,the transfer of its contract,and any assignable warranties or 144 guarantees received or held by Seller from any manufacturer,contractor,subcontractor,or material supplier in connection with es the Property;current copies of the condominium documents,if applicable;assigrrnents of leases,updated rent rot;tenant and 1.s lender estoppel letters;assignments of permits and licenses;corrective hs;ruments;and letters notifying tenants of the change 147 In ownershk/rental agent.If any tenant refuses to execute an estoppel letter,Seller we certify that Information regarding the 14s tenant's lease is correct.If Seller is a corporation,Seiler wit delver a resol.ttlon of Its Board of Directors authorizing the sale 149 and delivery of the deed and certification by the corporate Secretary cartifying the resolution and setting forth facts showing the 15o conveyance conforms to the requirements of local law,Seller veil transfer security deposits to Buyer.Buyer we provide the asi closing statement,mortgages and notes,security agreements,and financing statements. 152 (d)Taxes and Proration*:Real estates taxes,personal property taxes on any tangible personal property,bond payments i5s assumed by Buyer,interest,rents,association dues,insurance premiums acceptable to Buyer,and operating expenses wit be 'sir prorated through the day before closing. If the amount of taxes for the current year cannot be ascertained,rates for the previous ,ss year will be used with due allowance being made for improvements and exemptions.Any tax proration based on an estimate 156 will,at request of either party, be readjusted upon receipt of current year's tax bit;this provision will stxvive closing. 157 (e)Sp-.•.. .. . .at Liens:Carte:• confirmed,and r: ':. ass_.. . Piens as .f the Closing is. a will be p:': use by sr,If a oert•_.,confirmed,or = ..special• ant Is payable Instalments, ' • - we pay a1 •: ants• 159 en••.: :•Ie on• before the Closi • r•: e,with any i -1- . for any•• ..extending . : . • the C•_•,•. Date p • :.:d, ago : . Buyer wit me all nstaim: is that became.. :and payable 1,- the Closing r= a.Buyer will. .: oral tel arise- = • of any kind WWII• • due and• ng after Closing 'gate,unless an• proverment is -•bstantlalty., .:,:. as +e2 of Clod , a..• If en Improver is substantial •.mpleted as of : Closing r.,_ . has not res ad in a lien •:•ore closing, les Seller i pay the amount•• a last estimate• the assessment. tau (I)Foreign Investment In Real Property Tax Act(FIRPTA) If Seller Is a'foreign person*as defined by FIRPTA,Siler and 155 Buyer agree to comply with Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code.Sailer and Buyer will complete,execute,and deliver les as directed any instrument,affidavit,or statement reasonably necessary to comply with the FIRPTA requirements,i ciuding i67 delivery of their respective federal taxpayer identification numbers or Social Security Numbers to the dosing agent.if Buyer ee does not pay sufficient cash at dosing to meet the withholding requirement,Seller wit delver to Buyer at dosing the additional leo cash necessary to satisfy the requirement. 170 10.ESCROW AGENT: Seller and Buyer authorize Escrow Agent(Agent)to receive,deyoslt,and hold funds and other property 171 in escrow and,subject to collection,disburse them in accordance with the terms of this Contract.The parties agree that Agent 17s will not be liable to any person for misdalivery of escrowed Items to Seller or Buyer,unless the misdelivery is due to Agent's wilful 73 breach of this Contract or gross negligence.If Agent has doubt as to Agent's duties or obligations under this Contract.Agent may, 174 at Agent's option,(a)hold the escrowed items until the parties mutually agree to Its disbursement or until a court of competent 175 jurisdiction or arbitrator determines the rights of the parties or(b)depose the escrowed items with the clerk of the court having 178 jurisdiction over the matter and file an action In Interpleader.Upon notifying the parties of such action,Agent will be released from 1n el lability except for the duty to account for items previously delivered out of escrow.If Agent is a linensed mai estate broker, iia Agent we comply with Chapter 475,Florida Statutes_In any suit in whlch Agent rsterpleeds the escrowed items or is made a party ire because of acting as Agent hereunder,Agent wit recover reesonabie attorney's fees end costs Incurred,with these amounts to be ieo peed from and out of the escrowed Items and charged and awarded as court costs in favor of the proveh ug party, 1s1 11.CURE PERIOD: Prior to any claim for default being made,a party WI have an opportunity to cure any alleged default,if 1n a party fails to comply with any provision of this Contract,the other party will delver written notice to the non-complying party cies•specifying the non-complence.The non-complying party will have s days(5 days if left blank)after de Geary of such notice to -' tau cure the non-compliance. les 12.RETURN OF DEPOSIT: Unless otherwise specified In the Contract,in the event any condition of this Contract Is not met 1® and Buyer has timely given any required notice regarding the condition having not been met.Buyer's deposit wit be returned in ire accordance wlth.applicable Florida laws and regulations. las 13.DEFAULT: 180 (a)In the event the sale is not closed due to any default or failure on the pert of Seller other than failure to make the title ssi- iso marketable after diligent effort, Buyer may either(1)receive a refund of Buyer's deposits)or(2)seek specific performance.If 101 Buyer elects a deposit refund,Seller we be table to Brokerfor the full amount of the brokerage fee. 192 (b)In the event the sale is not closed due to any default or failure on the part of Buyer,Seller may either(1)retain sit deposit(a) iso paid or agreed to be paid by Buyer as agreed upon liquidated damages,consideration for the execution of this Contract,and 124'Buyer(66)f )and Siler(_,}( _- af1Qlow1edge receipt of a copy of This page,which Is Page 4 of 7 Pegem- CC.9 Res este o 200G Florida Aeroolefon a i aj • Al earls liesaml urea aortas• t. 3to.aa.4 to IS. a.aa.y - rate.Iaa.aev..nat 4 Maly. sLal rv..tr.oa..tt.arM.k.ems. 1s5 in felt settlement of any dein,upon which this Contract will terminate or(2)seek specific performance.If Seller retains the ice deposit.Seller wMIl pay the Brokers named in Paragraph 20 fifty percent of all forfeited deposits retained by Seiler(to be split 197 equaly among the Brokers)up to the f 1 amount of the brokerage fee. use 14.ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS: In any claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Contract,the prevaling party, rail which for purposes of this provision wit include Buyer.Seller and Broker,wit be awarded reasonable attorneys'fees,costs,and 200.expenses. 201 16.NOTICES: Ali notices will be In watIng and may be delivered by mail,personal delivery,or electroric means.Parties agree to 232 send all notices to addresses specified on the signature pagers).Any notice,document,or Item given by or delivered to an attorney az or real estate licensee(including a transaction broker)representing a party will be as effective as if given by or delivered to that party. 204 18.DISCLOSURES: 205 (e)Commercial Real Estate Sales Commission Use Act The Florida Commercial Real Estate Sales Commission hen Act ere provides that when a broker has earned a commission by performing licensed services under a brokerage agreement with you, 207 the broker may claim a lien against your net sales proceeds for the borer's commission.The broker's lien rights under the act tae cannot be waived before the commission is earned. 200 (b)Special Assessment Liens Imposed by Public Body:The Property may be sub(ect to unpaid special assessment lien(s) 210 imposed by a public body.(A public body Indudes a Community Development District.)Such liens,if any,shalt be paid as set 211 forth In Paragraph 9.(e). 212 (c)Radon Ges:Radon Is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that.when It has accumulated in a building In sufficient quantities, 213 may present health risks to persons who are exposed to k over time.Levels of radon that exceed federal and state guidelines 214 have been found in buildings In Florida.Additional information regarding radon and radon testing may be obtained from your 215 county public health unit, 21s (d)Energy-Efficiency Rating Infomlatlon:Buyer acknowledges receipt tithe Information brochure required by Section 217 553.996,Florida Statutes. 216 17.RISK OF LOSS: • 219 (a)it,atter the Effective Date end before obsing,the Property is damaged by fro or other casualty,Beller will bear the risk of 22o loss and Buyer may cancel this Contract without lability and the depostt(s)will be returned to Buyer.Alternatively,Buyer will ni have the option of purchasing the Property at the agreed upon purchase price and Seller wit transfer to Buyer at closing any 222 insurance proceeds,or Sailor's claim to any insurance proceeds payable for the damage.Seller will cooperate with and assist 223 Buyer in coiacting any such proceeds. 224 (b)if,after the Effective Date and before closing,any part of the Property Is taken in condemnation or under the right of eminent 225 domain,or proceedings for such taking wilt be pending or threatened,Buyer may cancel this Cntract left w he without at theablIty and 226 deposit(s)will be returned to Buyer.Alternatively,Buyer we have the option of purchasing 227 agreed upon purchase price and Seca wig transfer to the Buyer at dosing the proceeds of any award,or Seller's claim to any rzs award payable for the taking.Seller will cooperate with and assist Buyer in cofecting any such award. 2252, 18.ASSIGNABILITY:PERSONS BOUND: Itis Contract may be assigned to a related entity,and otherwise CI is not assignable .i 23o*6t is assignable.The terms"Buyer,""Seiler and"Broker may be singular or plural.This Contract Is binding upon Buyer,Seller 231 and their hers,personal representatives,successors and assigns(if assignment is permitted). 2= is.MISCELLANEOUS: The terms of this Contract constitute the entire agreement between Buyer and Seller.Modifications of 233 this Contract wi not be binc&tg unless in writing,signed and delivered by the party to be bound.Signatures,initials,documents 234 referenced in this Contract,counterparts and written modifications communicated electronically or on paper will be acceptable 235 for alt purposes,inckeiing deivery,and will be binding,Handwritten or typewritten terms inserted in or attached to this Contract ears prevail over preprinted terms.If any provision of this Contract is or becomes inveld or unenforceable,al remaining provisions will 237 continue to be fully effective.This Contract will be construed under Florida law and will riot be recorded in arty public records. • 2* Buyer f)( t end Seer L.._.J LJ acialowlaege rtrel(t of a ocpyf of the page.which 1a Page bot 7 Pages. CGS Rev.10'09 0 2009 Fic$da Awocmion at Rsvuro e N Frights ReceV rd • rsis software Le lteasas0 to (J. C>laroy - taloa Mswy+out a batty, LLC) ww.4s.asaatioadatk.00m• 23e 20.BROKERS: Neither Seller nor Buyer hae used the services of,or for any other reason owes compensation to,a licensed real 2n estate Broker other than: ,241' (aa Seliera Broker. 242 ((e171pary Name) (Ukargea) 2e9' • 244 • Nom,Tsirrlona.Far,E-rrag les' who 0 is a single agent 0 is a transaction broker 0 has no brokerage relationship and who will be compensated bylii(3eiter 249' D Buyer 0 both parties pursuant to 0 a fisting agreement 0 other(specify) 247' fir (b)Buyer's Broker: Ytt+ 249 Cancer,'Mar* f..ksreee 260' 251 (Adckaas,1ilephons,Fax.buret 25r who O is a single agent O is a transaction broker 0 has no brokerage relationship and who will be compensated by 0 Seller's 25?' Broker 0 Seller El Buyer O both parties pursuant to 0 an MLS offer of compensation 0 other(spooky) 254' • 2ss (colectivey referred toss'Broker')in connection with any act relating to the Property,inducing but not limited to inquiries, 2se introductions,consultations,and negotiations resulting In this transaction.Saler and Buyer agree to Indemnify and hold Broker 257 harmless from and against losses,damages,costs and expenses of any kind,ir>okxfing reasonable attorneys'fees at all levels, 259 and from uebifity to any person,arising from(1)compensation claimed which is inconsistent with the representation in this zs0 Paragraph,f2)enforcement action to cdlect a brokerage fee pursuant to Paragraph 10,(3)arty duty accepted by Broker at the 2e0 request of Seller or Buyer.which is beyond the scope of services regulated by Chapter 475,Florida Statutes,as amended,or(4) 26i recommendations of or services provided and expenses Incurred by any third party whom Broker refers,recommends,or retains 262 for or on behalf of Seer or Buyer. As 21,OPTIONAL CLAUSES: (Check)f any of the following clauses are applicable and are attached as en addendum to this Contract): 264' 0 Arbitration O Seiler Warranty 0 Existing Mortgage 255' 0 Section 1031 Exchange 0 Coastal Construction Control Une 0 Buyer's Attorney Approval Zer O Property Inspection and Repair 0 Flood Area Hazard Zone O Seler's Attorney Approval ter 0 Seller Representations • 0 Seller Financing 41 Other a.. Aaaetaelu. ass 22.ADDITIONAL TERMS: 299' 270- 27r 272' 273' 275' 270' 27r 275' 279.THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT.IF NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD,SEEK THE ADVICE 2i0 OF AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO SIGNING.BROKER ADVISES BUYER AND SELLER TO VERIFY ALL FACTS AND za1 REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THEM AND TO CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL 282 FOR LEGAL ADVICE(FOR EXAMPLE,INTERPRETING CONTRACTS.DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF LAWS ON 223 THE PROPERTY AND TRANSACTION,STATUS OF TITLE,FOREIGN INVESTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, 284 ETC.)AND FOR TAX,PROPERTY CONDITION,ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER ADVICE.BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES 2E15 THAT BROKER DOES NOT OCCUPY THE PROPERTY AND THAT ALL REPRESENTATIONS(ORAL,WRITTEN OR 2#Z OTHERWISE)BY BROKER ARE BASED ON SELLER REPRESENTATIONS OR PUBLIC RECORDS UNLESS BROKER 287 INDICATES PERSONAL VERIFICATION OF THE REPRESENTATION.BUYER AGREES TO RELY SOLELY ON SELLER. zee PROFESSIONAL INSPECTORS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES FOR VERIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY CONDITION, 25 SQUARE FOOTAGE AND FACTS THAT MATERIALLY AFFECT PROPERTY VALUE, 200.8crih►(rr ( )and Saber( )( )ac knowledge receipt or a copy d this Pape,which Is Page 5 of 7 Pages. CC-3 Nay.10,03 v 200e F9oride/aeooi icon ofFL7oae' Al Rights Asssrwd 291 EEO person signing this Contract on behalf of a party that is a business entity represents and warrants to the other party that ' 292 such signatory hes full power and authority to enter into and perform this Contract in accordance with its terms and each person 293 executing this Contract and other documents on behalf of such party has been duly authorized to do so. Date: At. s1- 3( 20 zos aturBuy ) Ct [L 'BY�c , , JT k De-`cAoymeu�+L Tax ID No.: S931(-1"6 `f�$ 207 (Typed or Printed Name ot Buyer) zea'Title: an a.QP� Telephone: Z34^ Z —7WI • 2gv Date: 5a3(Signature of Buyer) NA' Tax ID No.: 332 (Typed or Printed Name of Buyer) 333-Title: Telephone: leen Buyer's Address for purpose of notice: xis"Facsimile: Buckstooe nates335' _ e 13uited liability nR /1 Date: T O 1 0 307 (Signature of Seger) 1 ( /�/� L • 4. Overly law= Tax ID No.: S("��.- 1 - '2 1 3 2 _'3 4 hoc (Typed or Patted Name of Seiler) Telephone: �� `(Z1]^ r (�` 2— 313'Title: ce-1r ricer Backetnne Estates. LLC, a Fr1.Ot:ida liablity 311'"1" Date: 7-` ((-1 _ t C O 312 (Signature of Smiler} . 1� 2- 313• lticttasl D. line=rs Tax ID No,: G 314 (Typed or Printed Name of Siler) c{ sig*TTrrfle; Co-Manager Taiephone:2-3 ! — 2i3/— `�' "() 1' '� 315•Seller's Address for purpose of notice: G 1 U L t '�-�ft E c7 - a q(D V e Jp.oef 1 &h. IQi„1 G I l� 3,&,:f-C lLo(i ?1/401,s-/ FL 3 y/Dl 31r Facsimile: 2 ` by 1 t 1 T (I E-smelt. The nod&a Asaocisban ot RFX7oaae mak no representation ae to the Iagsl vaiday or adequacy of any provision of this norm In any specific transaction,This associa ecsd bol should not be used In complex transactions or with Wendy,lidera or additions.This forth Is amit*to use by ttr shirrs real estate ilduatiy and is not Mended to barely the Lew u s Rekaort'.Rpuce i a registered colsctis membership meek which may be used only by reel estate licensees who ere numbers ler the NATIONAL ASSCOADON Ol FrfALTCAS.and who subsoil.to ha Code at Ethics. The copyright laws of the tuned States(17 UA Coda)forbid the inerts l:red re froduWort of the tam by any means including taceimte or computerized tome 318`Buyer and Sallef t }( 1 ecknowiedOe receipt of a copy of Me pep,which b Page 7 of 7 Pages. CC-3 Rev.10/09 0 2009 Florida Aseoois ion of feAtioasrr Al Rights Reelr.cd Thin software is lical*ad to-IJ. Cmray - Taloa Seaaaseet a ttaalty. Lacs eevatsaarsastiaeaaak.eas. Bieck lrRidac Phase 1-PM Book 43,Pages 89 through 92 Lot(s)2,4,5,6,9,10, 11, 12,14, 15, 16, 11,20,21,23, 2t,31,34,35,37,38,39,40,42,43,46, 47,48, 52,53,54,55,58,59,62,63,64&67 Phase 11-Plat Book 47,Page 40 Lots)68,69,73,74,75,76,77,78,81, 84,St,89,90,91,92,93 Phase 111-Plat Book 48,Page 71 Lot(s)95,96, 98&99 F. ADDENDUM TO FAR COMMERCIAL CONTRACT BLACK BEAR RIDGE This Addendum to FAR Commercial Contract("Addendum")is made and entered into as of the date set forth on the Contract to which this Addendum is attached("Contract") by and between the parties set forth as Seller and Buyer on said Contract, for the sale and purchase of the following real property: Those Black Bear Ridge subdivision Lots as specifically set forth in the Exhibit to the Commercial Contract(the"Property"). The Contract and this Addendum shall be collectively tcfcued to as the Contract. IN THE EVENT ANY PROVISION OF THIS ADDENDUM CONFLICTS IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ADDENDUM SHALL CONTROL. I. IT IS EXPRESSLY AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE BUYER THAT ANY 17 EXPRESS REPRESENTATIONS,WARRANTIES,OR STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE CONTRACT, WHETHER REFERRING TO THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, OR WHETHER REFERRING TO THE EXISTENCE OF FEATURES, FUNCTIONS OR SERVICES RELATING TO OR SERVING THE PROPERTY (INCLUDING, BY WAY OF EXAMPLE ONLY, WHETHER THE PROPERTY HAS PARTICULAR TYPES OF UTILITY SERVICES), ARE SPECIFICALLY WAIVED, DISCLAIMED, AND RENDERED NULL AND VOID AND THE PROPERTY IS BEING SOLD "AS IS-WHERE IS" AND SELLER MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY AND HAS NO OBLIGATIONS FOR REPAIRS THEREOF. 2. APPROVAL BY IBERIA BANK. Buyer acknowledges that Iberia Bank ("Iberia") has a Mortgage on the Property. The Contract is contingent upon a)the approval of the purchase price, terms of the Contract and the Closing Statement;b)Iberia's agreement to accept a payoff.which is less than the balance due on the loan, and : c) Iberia's release and satisfaction of the mortgage upon receipt of the discounted Closing payoff. Iberia shall have twenty(20)days from the Effective Date to approve the purchase price and contract terms (the "Approval Deadline"). In the event that Iberia has not delivered written acceptance within the Approval Deadline, either party may terminate the Contract by delivering written notice to the other. Buyer's right to terminate shall cease to exist if Seller gives notice to Buyer that Seller waives this contingency or that Lender Approval has been obtained prior to Buyer giving Seller notice of termination. TIME PERIODS. All time periods under the Contract shall commence from the date Seller v% either delivers notice to Buyer of Lender Approval or the date Seller has waived the contingency. Buyer and Seller agree to extend the Closing Date in the Contract, not to exceed ten (10)days if Iberia 1% requires additional time to complete the short sale transaction. 3. ASSIGNMENT OF PERMITS,PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. At Closing,Owner to assign(I)its development rights,density rights,drainage rights,and allocations to Buyer(ii)all architectural, engineering, building and similar plans, specifications,drawings,studies, reports, plats, permits surveys, work product, and the like related to the Land and Improvements, (iii)all permits, approvals, and applications with any governmental authorities pertaining to the Land or any portion thereof, and all sewer taps, allocations and agreements for utilities and utility deposits, if any, (iv) all rights and interests appurtenant to the Land and Improvements arising out of or related to any property owners associations, declaration, reciprocal easement agreement,or other encumbrance affecting title to the Land in connection with a common development scheme with other lands, and other embellishments now or in the future on or appurtenant to the Land, and all other intangible property relating to the Land,if any('Intangible Property")to Buyer. • 4. SETTLEMENT AS FINAL. a. Acceptance of the Deed at Closing shall constitute Buyer's full acceptance of the condition of the Property and a waiver of Buyer's right to object to its condition or assert any claim related to the Property at any time in the future. b. This provision shall survive delivery of the Deed and the Closing. 5. INDEMNIFICATION. a. Buyer agrees to indemnify and fully protect, defend and hold Seller, its officers, -' directors,employees,shareholders,servicers,representatives,agents, attorneys,tenants,brokers,successors and assigns, harmless from and against any and all claims,costs,liens, loss, damages, attorney's fees and expenses of every kind and nature that may be sustained by or made against Seller, its officers, directors, employees, shareholders,servicers, representatives,agents,attorneys,tenants, brokers,successors or assigns, resulting from or arising out of i. 'Inspections or repairs made by Buyer or its agents, employees, contractors, successors or assigns; ii. The imposition of any fine or penalty imposed by any governmental entity resulting from Buyer's failure to timely obtain any permits,approvals,repairs or inspections or to comply with all applicable laws,rules,ordinances and regulations; iii. Claims or amounts due and owing by Seller for taxes, homeowner's association dues or assessment,or any other terms prorated at Closing under this Contract; iv. Buyer or Buyer's tenants, agents or representatives who use or occupy the Property prior to Closing;and v. All indemnities described in this Contract shall survive the Closing or termination of the Contract. BUYER: SELLER: BUCKSTONE ESTATES, LW, a Florida limited liability company By: ii By: Name. DR \ doreti.4-1(ts` Name: ii./l.i'cJi 1 Its: C cl Date: Awywt- 3t ,2o>6 Date: 1—( R:VWojfCrick isotattRFPlektoktodiort to CowfaotBuckNons.BRRdoc 2 • ASSIGNMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND PERMITS THIS ASSIGNMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND PERMITS (this "Assignment") is made and delivered on this 1(4.of December, 2010, by Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (the "Assignor"), to Black Bear Ridge Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability company(the"Assignee"), STATEMENT OF PURPOSE WHEREAS, Assignor has this day transferred its rights title and interest in that certain real property described as: Exhibit"A"attached hereto; and WHEREAS, Assignor desires to transfer to Assignee all of its right, title and interest in and to all construction plans, permits and government entitlements for its benefit including, but not limited to the items set forth on: 'Exhibit"B"attached hereto. WHEREAS: Assignor is the "Developer" in the Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements For Black Bear Ridge recorded on August 30, 2005 in Official Records Book 3879, at Page 1030 and amendments thereto (the "Declaration") and desires to assign its right, title and interest as"Developer" under the Declaration for the purpose of continuing the process of development of the Black Bear Ridge community and the sale of single family residences to third parties. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN and No/100 DOLLARS ($10.00)and other good and valuable consideration,Assignor hereby agrees as follows: 1. Assignor hereby grants, transfers and assigns to Assignee, its successors and assigns, all of Assignor's right, title and interest in, to and under the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements. Notwithstanding the provisions above to the contrary, Assignor shall retain its rights to the escrowed funds on deposit with Collier County pursuant to the Construction, Maintenance and Escrow Agreements for Subdivision Improvements with the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. 2. Assignor warrants and represents to Assignee that: (a) there are no other assignments or conveyances of any of Assignor's rights under the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements to any other person or entity; (b) Assignor has not done any act or failed to do any act which might prevent Assignee from,or limit Assignee in,acting under any of the provisions contained herein; (c) no default exists under the terms of the Construction Documents, Permits and Governmental Entitlements and no prohibition exists in any instrument to which Assignor is a party or by which Assignor is otherwise bound relating to Assignor's right to execute this • Assignment and perform all of Assignor's obligations contained herein. 3. The parties agree that whenever used in this Assignment, the words "Assignor" and "Assignee" shall include their respective heirs, executors, legal representatives, administrators, successors and assigns. The pronouns used herein shall include, when appropriate, either gender and both singular and plural. 4. Assignor represents to Assignee, its successors and assigns, as follows: (a) Assignor is currently the Developer under the Declaration; (b) Assignor has good right, power, and authority to assign and convey its rights as the Developer under the Declaration to Assignee; and (c) this Assignment and Assumption has been duly authorized by Assignor and is executed on behalf of Assignor by a representative duly authorized to execute the same. [SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Assignor has signed and sealed this Assignment or has caused this Assignment to be signed and sealed by duly authorized representatives the day and year first above written. WITNESSES: ASSIGNOR: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC,a Florida limited liability company war/1111 �14-t-7ABy: a Jody K.Vanderbilt Q. Grady Minor Its: Co-Manager Print e (Corporate Seal) Beth D. Lightner Print Name 4050 ,, Jody K.Vanderbilt Michael D. Moore Its: Co-Manager Print Name 47,a7D94L---- Beth D. Lightner (Corporate Seal) Print Name STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /fday of December, 2010 by Q. Grady Minor as Co- Manager of Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company on behalf of the company, who is personally known to me or who has produced (type ofidentification) as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. NOTE: If a type of identification is not inserted in the blank provided, then the person executing this instrument was personally known to me. if the words in the parenthetical "did not" are not circled, then the person executing this instrument did take an oath. OD II yrs N Public` Aii •,;. iwaaRr My Commission Expires: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of December, 2010 by Michael D. Moore as Co- Manager of Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company on behalf of the company, who is personally known to me or who has produced (type of identification) as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. NOTE: If a type of identification is not inserted in the blank provided, then the person executing this instrument was personally known to me. If the words in the parenthetical "did not" are not circled, then the person executing this instrument did take an oath. / 4/244die Notar Pubic D.WIPER • ^o Iss ow.00911r:, My Commission Expires: .311mik ryHbiM::7 MM.IMMO I COMMON I DO OW EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Lots 2,4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20,21, 23, 28, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43,46, 47,48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 67, Black Bear Ridge-Phase 1, a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 43, Pages 89 through 92,of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida_ AND Lots 68, 69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, Black Bear Ridge- Phase 2,a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 47,pages 40 through 42, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. AND Lots 95, 96, 98, 99, Black Bear Ridge - Phase 3, a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 48, pages 71 and 72, of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. EXHIBIT B LIST OF ENTITLEMENTS, PERMITS, & PLANS • Zoning/Entitlement o Wolf Creek RPUD(Ord. 03-45); (Ord. 07-46) • Construction Plans& Plat o Collier County-Black Bear Ridge—Phase I Plans& Plat(AR-9984) o Collier County - Black Bear Ridge—Phase II Plans&Plat(AR-11262) o Collier County -Black Bear Ridge—Phase 111 Plans& Plat(AR-11262) • Permits o South Florida Water Management- Water Use Permit(11-02343-W) • Applications (#040629-7); (#040901-6); (#051206-12); o South Florida Water Management - Environmental Resource Permit (11- 02332-P) ■ Applications (#030328-10); (#05819-20) • Pre-paid Road Impact Fee Credits o $131,670 of Collier County pre-paid COA credits (as of November 2nd, 2010) 3467972 OR: 3635 PG: 1672 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 09/01/2004 at 10:13AM DWIGHT B. BIOCI, CLERK This instrument was prepared RIC FEE 239.50 without an opinion of title and INDEIING 3.00 0 after recording return to: Retn: I Gregory L.Urbancic,Esq. G00DLETTB COLEMAN IT AL Ni Goodlette,Coleman&Johnson,P.A. 4001 TANIANI TR N #300 4001 Tarniami Trail North,Suite 300 NAPLES FL 34103 Naples,Florida 34103 (239)435-3535 (space above this line for recording data) COST SHARING AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHARED ACCESS ROAD THIS COST SHARING AG' ,•,,;p_".I DEVELOPMENT OF A SHARED ACCESS ROAD(this"Agreement" - - entered-..313 ,33..\- of t6 , 2004, by and among the following: (i)Wpf , Estates,LLC,a •:d -lintited liability c pany("Wolf Creek Estates"); (ii) William L. Hooves, as,` ustee_.o(,the Fallen Timb°e{s Ld Trust dated November 5, 2003 ("Hoover/Fallen Timbers"); (iii) Mar 33— indner, as-'I' ustee '�nde unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D January 4, 1999 ("Lindner/Tr/1st r...0.,- it. L. .•• '• . st , under unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D May 21, 1999 ("Lin.A er/' " 2" ( : i o+ rfrk es, ',i,LC, a Florida limited liability company(`Buckstone Estates ). ': WITNESSETI THA ry io WHEREAS, the parties Ii[ own adjacent real Ipe) Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,Collier County,Flo • • WHEREAS, the parties hereto of efol 'g properties which are the subject of this Agreement,with said individual properties being legally described on Exhibit"A"attached hereto and made a part hereof: OWNER: PARCEL: Lindner/Trust 1 Parcel 1 Lindner/Trust 2 Parcel 2 Wolf Creek Estates Parcel 4 Wolf Creek Estates Parcel 5 Wolf Creek Estates Parcel 6 Buckstone Estates Parcel 7 Hoover/Fallen Timbers Parcel 8(west half) Buckstone Estates Parcel 8(east half) Buckstone Estates Parcel 9 Lindner/Trust 1 Parcel 10 Buckstone Estates Parcel 11 1 , OR: 3635 PG: 1673 WHEREAS, Parcels 1, Parcel 2, and Parcels 4 through 12, inclusive, are depicted on the illustration attached hereto as Exhibit"B"(said parcels shall sometimes collectively be referred to herein as the"Parcels");and WHEREAS, Dania Luisa Mederos, as Trustee of the Dania Luisa Mederos Land Trust dated August 15, 2000 (who is not a party to this agreement) is the owner of that certain real property in Collier County, Florida legally described as follows: The South 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida("Parcel 3"); and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to formalize an agreement with respect to the construction of an access road generally along the north-south half-section line in Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County; and WHEREAS, Exhibit "B" also depicts the general, proposed location of the access road with the various segment points on the access road being labeled with alphabetical designations. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,the parties hereto do hereby . e as follows: ti- r 1. Recitals. The abov- ',. e true and c. .'�d,incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Pending Transaction' Future-Development. ' - intent of this Section is for the parties to disclose various pending transactio �'ns — - ma or nay not clo and development petitions involving or affecting the Parcels. Unlesa c. . ;,,,, . s. -x . disclosures contained in this Section shall not be construed as a requ r- t o •: e op;a .a-ti 1 .1 o$Yn anylparticular manner. (a) Parcel 10 is �• t. c . - . U th\ th '�*¢ver, or assignee, with a petition request to Collier County to de�- a specialtyretail/offi•_ are o arcel. P \ " ' , C) / (b) This Agreement '"41 .- disclosed by the 1 l Anvolved in the transaction to the purchaser described in subsection(a r.. : : this Agre i.- : be disclosed to any other prospective purchaser of any one or more of the Par - st[/-L c I -C' (c) Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 are expected but not required to be developed as a multi-family project. (d) Parcel 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6 are expected but not required to be developed as a single- family project. (e) Parcel 7, Parcel 8, Parcel 9, and Parcel 11 are expected but not required to be developed as a single-family project. 3. Mederos Parcel (Parcel 3). Parcel 3 is owned by Dania Luisa Mederos, as Trustee of the Dania Luisa Mederos Land Trust dated August 15, 2000 ("Mederos") and Mederos is not a party to this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be construed as affecting or encumbering Parcel 3 except under the circumstances provided under Section 6(g). Further,this Agreement shall not be construed in a manner so as to provide any third-party rights for Mederos. 4. General Development Standard. All Parcels shall be developed in a high quality manner commensurate with the projects recently constructed or being constructed concurrently in the 2 011: 3635 PG: 1674 Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road corridors, located between Livingston Road and Collier Boulevard. The Parcels are permitted to have differing land uses but the actual land uses shall be compatible with each other. The Parcels shall be developed using a similar architectural theme along the access roads, quality buffering and screening between the differing land uses, and common site design techniques. All Parcels shall be designed and developed to minimize any negative impacts on abutting and neighboring Parcels. 5. Zoning. Each owner (and the owner's successor, assign, and successor in title) agrees that it shall not object to any rezoning and/or development consistent with the following provisions: (a) Parcel 10 may be rezoned and developed for specialty retail and office land uses. The most westerly 175 feet of Parcel 10 shall be designed and developed only for offices, banks, drug stores, sit-down restaurants, retail shops, and similar intensity commercial uses, and shall not be permitted to have gas stations, convenience stores,fast food restaurants,and stand alone bars or lounges. (b) Parcel 1, Parcel 2, and Parcels 4 through 9, inclusive, may be developed for residential use. Said parcels have been rezoned to the Wolf Creek PUD, Collier County Ordinance No. 03-45 (hereinafter "Wolf Creek PUD") and shall be developed according to the development standards within the Wolf Creek PUD. Any owner of one of_rthese-parcels.tnay apply for a PUD Amendment to the Wolf Creek PUD through Collier County for, . i lio in "purposes without written permission of the remaining owner(s) of the Wolf Cr property:(i pnd moderate intensity changes to said owner's own parcel or(ii)to incot 'additional property i or, ne Wolf Creek PUD,including,without limitation, Parcel 3, Parcel 11, a d/o tllte-neighborinnpareel wit Section 34 owned by Comcast. Any amendment to the Wolf CreeksP> s — ,int9in„the Thain p .tte principal uses and the same or substantially the same develgmyt i f eek PUD at the time of such amendment. Further, any amend ` , sh• -. b • d=s i o °.1 velopment consultants experienced in Collier County PUD rezoni : • a ",j! , ocesss. t ; :- I (c) The owner of 1 or Parcel 2 have tlgh at . e,as to said owner's parcels,to request a rezoning to allow dth ,ment for resident u_s s • hes, private schools, child care facilities,and/or adult living facilt (d) The owner of Parcel 10`•• il ',s \rte, as to said owner's parcel, to request a rezoning to allow development for residenha - • - • s,private schools, child care facilities, and/or adult living facilities. (e) The owner of Parcel 11 has the right at any time, as to said owner's parcel, to request a rezoning to allow development for residential uses,churches,and/or child care facilities. (f) Any 3-story buildings on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be setback a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet from the North-South Road (as hereinafter defined)between Points "A" through "D" as shown on Exhibit"B"attached hereto and made a part hereof. Additionally, any buildings on Parcel 1 or Parcel 2 shall have tile, metal, or wood roofs, and either a carport or garage for each residential unit. None of the Parcels shall be developed for Affordable Housing, as defined within the Collier County Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance,as amended from time to time. 6. Design,Permitting,and Construction of North-South Access Road. (a) General. The parties intend for a 2-lane north-south access road to be constructed generally in the location shown on Exhibit "B" from Point "A" to Point "F" (the "North-South Road"). All references herein to a particular "Point" shall mean and refer to those labels on Exhibit "B". The 3 OR: 3635 PG: 1675 North-South Road shall be constructed to then-current Collier County road standards, shall include utility improvements of sufficient size and capacity to serve all Parcels,and shall be designed and constructed so as to be shared access road intended to serve three (3) moderately upscale residential communities. The North-South Road shall include such related facilities as required by Collier County which may include, without limitation, sidewalks; turn lanes; curbs; entry features; signage; median improvements; lights, light poles and related facilities; stormwater drainage lines, pipes, and related facilities; landscaping; and other utility and infrastructure improvements. All segments of the North-South Road shall be designed and constructed in a consistent manner so as to be compatible with one another. (b) Intersection Improvements. The owners of the Parcels shall each pay a proportionate share, based upon each parcel's acreage as shown on Exhibit "C"attached hereto and made a part hereof, of the design, permitting and construction costs for all North-South Road/Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection improvements such as turn lanes,bridges/culverts, arterial level street lighting, and a possible traffic signal, located approximately between Points "A-1" to "A-2" ("Intersection Improvements"). If a traffic signal is required after completion and payment of the costs of the Intersection Improvements by the owners of the Parcels,the future costs for the traffic signal shall be shared as shown on Exhibit"C". (c) Segment 1. The owners of Parcel 1, Parcel 2, Parcel 9 and Parcel 10 shall be equally responsible for the design, permitting and construction-costs of the North-South Road between Point"A- 2" (a point on the southern property li f` el€ E. :-I 10) and either Point "D" or such other endpoint between Point "C" and Pef ' a be . •„'. by Collier County (the "Segment 1 Endpoint"). The design and cot -0110 for said portion of - `1 o1Qh-South Road shall include all turn lanes required by Collier CountyJTranipertafian,S, -Services during t•eir review of the construction drawings for this portion of the road. Th1portion=d€the,No__ oo oad between Point"A-2"and the Segment 1 Endpoint together with the Int'rse r: A ..e f ...- .+: , imd referred to herein as "Segment 1". Design and permitting fort Segtnt o„'l end f o 2004 by Buckstone Estates. A copy of the Preliminary Open o. 6. ' ob .1= C•sti r:p;ared i !. . adp Minor & Associates, P.A. for construction of Segment 1 (w,. . : .oin 6 'os".. -'!") i—, vc44,1ereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit"D". Said exhibit is a :, _ for informational p',...se` aid„, er costs and improvements detailed therein are preliminary and su.a . modification. A- s .yio 't ;estimated design, permitting, and related costs prepared by Q. Grad `'r,P.E. for Segment endpoint of Point"D") is attached hereto and made a part hereof as EAUC,1 " Said exhibi ed for informational purposes and the costs detailed therein are preliminary 'su$j . ;— 'a .' 1._,_y:--:-------- (d) Segment 2. The portion of the North-South Road between the Segment 1 Endpoint and Point"F"shall be sometimes referred to herein as"Segment 2". In the event that the Segment 1 Endpoint is the same as Point "D", the owners of Parcel 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6 shall be equally responsible for the design, permitting and construction costs of the North-South Road for"Segment 2". In the event the Segment 1 Endpoint lies south of Point"D",the costs shall be divided as follows: (i)the owners of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall pay for fifty percent (50%) of the design, permitting and construction costs of the North-South Road between the Segment 1 Endpoint and Point "D"; (ii) the owner of Parcel 9 shall pay for the other fifty percent(50%)of the design,permitting and construction costs of the North-South Road between the Segment 1 Endpoint and Point "D"; and (iii) the owners of Parcel 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6 shall be equally responsible for the remaining design, permitting and construction costs for Segment 2. The design and construction for Segment 2 shall include all turn lanes required by Collier County Transportation Services during their review of the construction drawings for this portion of the North- South Road, excluding any turn lanes on Parcel 2 or Parcel 9 that would be paid for by the owner of Parcel 2 or Parcel 9,as the case may be. (e) Dedication to Collier County. Upon completion of the construction of the North-South Road, the owners of the Parcels agree the North-South Road shall be dedicated to Collier County unless 4 011: 3635 PG: 1676 either (i) all owners agree in writing that the North-South Road should remain private or (ii) the dedication of the North-South Road is not accepted by Collier County. In the event the owners of the Parcels agree to maintain the North-South Road as a private road, the written agreement among the owners shall make a provision for the on-going maintenance and repair of the North-South Road and a means for sharing the costs and expenses of the same. In the event the North-South Road including any of the appurtenances thereto, or any portion thereof) is not accepted by Collier County, the owners shall enter into a written agreement regarding the on-going maintenance and repair thereof. All owners agree to promptly execute such documentation and provide such information as may be requested or required by Collier County to complete the dedication. (f) Maintenance of North-South Road. Any Developer (as hereinafter defined) completing construction of the North-South Road or any segment thereof shall maintain and repair, in keeping with all governmental permits and approvals, such portion of the North-South Road, until such time as the North-South Road is dedicated to (and such dedication is accepted by) Collier County, and Collier County accepts the North-South Road for maintenance, in accordance herewith. The owners shall be obligated to reimburse the Developer (as the case may be) for their pro rata share of the costs and expenses incurred by the Developer in connection with the maintenance and repair of the North-South Road (or portion thereof) for so long as the Developer is obligated to maintain and repair same as provided herein. Each owner's pro rata shareof-the-maintenance and repair cost shall be the same as each owner's share for the initial constructioni f (ia .• .•on. Each owner shall deliver its pro rata share of such maintenance and repair``e .f the Deve o•=� r , ..i five (5) business days of receipt of a bill therefore from the Developpr.Oethe event that theNprthouth Road (including any of the appurtenances thereto, or any portioiyft ereof)--is not accepted bk,Colher County as a public road and/or for maintenance within one (1) year .•e date o`f`c pletioin of\the North-South Road, then the Developer shall no longer bez'reso• sig r:r ar o the North-South Road and the owners of the Parcels shall agreel p•tn - F e o ma foz; future maintenance, which method may include, without limitatin N'- •`• _'• F f coimuni�. 4ev lQrpent district pursuant to Section 190, Florida Statutes ("CDD" O i .rfira`'a -cff a-inatter he. . i association("MHOA"). In the event a CDD is formed for th lr•ose of maintaining, d r.•aihie North-South Road, the CDD shall have the responsibility fo \-, rming the maintetf e&ndir work and paying the cost and expense of the same. Notwiths... • anything to the co ,the CDD shall only have financial responsibility pertaining to the lan. i • benefited an d by the CDD. The CDD shall have no financial obligations to or for any p el . 0toCDD. The CDD shall have the authority to collect for such cost and expense in ma'i '•114 e-7N6rth-South Road through assessments or such other collection mechanism as may be authorized pursuant to Section 190,Florida Statutes. In the event a MHOA is formed, the MHOA shall have the responsibility for performing the maintenance and repair work and paying the cost and expense of the same. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary,the MHOA shall only have financial responsibility pertaining to the land which is benefited and burdened by the MHOA. The MHOA shall have no fmancial obligations to or for any parcels not subjected to the MHOA. The MHOA shall have the authority to collect for such cost and expense in maintaining the North-South Road through assessments. (g) Mederos Property (Parcel 3). Parcel 3, owned by Mederos, is not included within the scope of this Agreement. It is agreed that in the event that one or more signatories hereto(individually or collectively) or Prime Investors and Developers, Inc. acquire Parcel 3 prior to construction of Segment 2 of the North-South Road, then said party will cooperate by promptly granting such easements as may be necessary to develop Segment 2 of the North-South Road. The alignment of the North-South Road shall thereafter be adjusted onto Parcel 3, with the width of the road on Parcel 3 being the greater of the following: (i) thirty (30) feet or (ii) one-half of the width of the North-South Road as proposed for the segment of the North-South Road encompassing Parcel 3 and Parcel 8. The conveyance of such an easement by such owner(s)prior to Collier County's approval of the roadway drawings and plans for the 5 OR: 3635 PG: 1677 construction of Segment 2 shall be deemed to be the payment of said owner(s)fair share of the cost of the North-South Road with respect to Parcel 3. 7. Wolf Creek PUD. (a) Allocation. The Wolf Creek PUD encompasses Parcel 1, Parcel 2, Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive, and Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. The Wolf Creek PUD permits 591 residential dwelling units. Unless otherwise provided herein, density shall not be transferred from one parcel to another within the Wolf Creek PUD without prior written permission of the owner of the property losing density. The Wolf Creek PUD allocated the 591 residential units as follows and as shown on Exhibit"F"attached hereto and made a part hereof: Parcel 1-64 units; Parcel 7-41 units; and all other parcels in the PUD- 81 units each. Upon the execution of this Agreement, 41 dwelling units each shall be automatically transferred from each of Parcels 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6, at no cost, to Parcel 1, with a total resulting transfer of 123 units to Parcel 1. Accordingly, the number of residential units allocated to Parcel 1 under the Wolf Creek PUD shall be 187. (b) Option to Purchase Additional Density. The owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ("Purchaser") shall have the option to purchase (in addition to the density allocated to Parcel 1 and Parcel pursuant to subsection (a) hereof) from the owner of Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive, ("Seller") up to 92 dwelling units which have been allocated-. ction (a) hereof to Parcels 7 through 9, rp inclusive. Said option may be exe " ,• 1' asci. re than two transactions on or before December 31, 2005 ("Expiration 1 ` ' e purchase pn .., ch individual dwelling unit shall be $500.00. In the event Purchaser elec o exercise this option, cha shall,on or before the Expiration Date, notify Seller of the number of u''i ts:: o be-pureha.S�1. Clo 'ng f any such purchase of dwelling units shall occur within 20 days of/Seller's re notice,from chaser. The purchase price shall be paid in cash, wired funds, or A cas+ cr;a `„o,t. j: an`office in Collier County, Florida or such other method as may be a+ tabl t� 1 ", lir' ole'discretion. Seller shall have the sole discretion to determine fikc - )141lmg i e'a4signed. Purchaser shall pay all costs associated with the • . er of dwelling units. This o`'do 7l terminate on midnight of the Expiration Date and be of no a orce and effect. ' • y / (c) Contingency. In 7.i t any statute, law' upince, resolution, rule, or regulation is adopted and enforced by the state, u y • • .' �tal entity (or any agency or department thereof) that would have the effect of .w,•:. ,' l 1 jig-the number of dwelling units that can be constructed within the Wolf Creek PUD (in its'en''fire yy),the parties agree that Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be collectively allocated 33%of any such temporary allocation and Parcels 4 through 9 shall be allocated 67% of any such temporary allocation; provided, however, that such temporary allocation shall not have the effect of reallocating density among the parcels. For the purposes of this paragraph only, the term "temporary"shall mean for a period of no more than twelve(12)months. 8. Native Vegetation. Unless otherwise agreed by the owners of the various Parcels, all Parcels within the Wolf Creek PUD shall be designed to stand alone. All Parcels with indigenous native vegetation, as determined by Collier County, will be required to preserve or replant 25% of such native vegetation, as described in Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, or in the event of a repeal of said section, such other section of the Collier County Land Development Code controlling the same subject matter. Each of the Parcels shall provide for its own native vegetation requirements as shown within the Collier County approved environmental impact study that was submitted in conjunction with the Wolf Creek PUD rezoning petition, unless otherwise agreed to by any one or more Parcels owners. Parcels providing in excess of 25% native vegetation can transfer such credit to another Parcel under different ownership only upon written agreement of the property owner transferring the excess credit. 6 OR: 3635 PG: 1678 9. Access Easements/Signature Entry Feature. In order to construct the North-South Road,various road right-of-way easements will be required from the owners of the Parcels. To the extent not previously provided,the owners of the Parcels agree to convey the easements described in this section at no cost to the other owners within twenty(20)days of a receipt of a written request from the Developer (as defined in Section 11 below), and further agree to the conditions and limitations described in this section. (a) Parcel 2/Parcel 8. The owner of Parcel 2 shall provide a non-exclusive 30-foot wide permanent road right-of-way easement along the east 30 feet of Parcel 2 for the benefit of all Parcels. The owner of Parcel 8 shall provide a non-exclusive 30-foot wide permanent road right-of-way easement along the west 30 feet of Parcel 8 for the benefit of all Parcels. The owner of Parcel 9 shall provide a non-exclusive 30-foot wide permanent road right-of-way easement along the west 30 feet of Parcel 9 for the benefit of all Parcels. Where the minimum road width is required by Collier County Transportation Services to be wider than 60 feet, the easement width provided shall be increased the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the North-South Road, with the center of the roadway remaining on the half section line where possible(unless the Developer controls the land on both sides of the roadway, in which case the Developer shall determine in its sole discretion where to locate the centerline of the North-South Road for said portions); provided, however, that where a wider road right-of-way is needed to provide a turn lane into a particular project the additional road right-of-way easement area shall come from the parcel needing such turn lane. > (b) Parcel 1/Parcel 10., int"A-2"to the owner of Parcel 1 shall provide a non-exclusive 42-foot wide permaii t/rooad right-of-way ease t along the east 42 feet of Parcel 1 and the owner of Parcel 10 shall provide noirexclutsive_ ene 42- opt widpermanent road right-of-way easement along the western 42 feet of Parcel/10,bac- ..e r the pbl*of all ??rce1s. From Point"B"to Point "C", the roadway width is intended to tit.. G v : ,.+ •, ..* 'ght-pf--way to 60-foot road right-of- way. The owner of Parcel 1 Shall'i5r. 'd" o : - • e - . t` 42jfoot wide permanent road right- of-way easement along the eat„ to '2 et .f aitci 1 t' and e •wi�,gf Parcel 10 shall provide a non- exclusive 30-foot to 42-foot v ki "en •f--wi .,LerwiX along the western 30 to 42 feet of Parcel 10, each for the ben- ,. all Parcels. The ac•1.1 dthh,.ctf )fich road right-of-way shall be as determined by Collier County\ . ...rtation Services ; , • - ` view of the roadway plans for Segment 1. Where the minimum •,+° 'dth is required by r) & unty Transportation Services to be wider than contemplated herein,the -ajj i.- it width provid-: 6:4'w/eel 1 and Parcel 10 shall be increased the minimum amount necessary to acc..1t, ,is• r- , i 'Road. (c) Purpose of Easements. These easements provided for in this section are for the purpose of providing unrestricted ingress and egress for all of the Parcels and shall also be for the construction of the North-South Road, including all necessary or required utilities, sidewalks, water management facilities,landscaping,and signage. (d) Signature Entry Feature. (i) Permitted Owners/Location. The easements described in subsection 9(b) of this Agreement (or in a separate easement if desired by the owner of Parcel 1 or Parcel 10) shall permit the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, the owner of Parcels 7 through 9, or the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ("Permitted Owners") to construct a signature entry feature (hereinafter"Signature Entry Feature") upon no more than 400 square feet in area and located north of where the North-South Road intersects with Vanderbilt Beach Road. For purposes of this section, the term Permitted Owners shall be deemed to include and mean, as to each individual Permitted Owner, said Permitted Owner's successor, assign, or successor in title. The Signature Entry Feature may be constructed at any time subsequent to the commencement of construction of the North-South Road between Points "A-2" and "C". The Signature Entry Feature may be located, at the sole discretion of the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, in either the 7 OR: 3635 PG: 1679 North-South Road median or in wing walls along each side of the North-South Road. (ii) Constructing Owner. The owner constructing the Signature Entry Feature shall be referred to herein as the Constructing Owner. Any of the Permitted Owners may become the Constructing Owner, subject to the provisions of this paragraph. Buckstone Estates, because of its designation as the Developer of Segment 1, shall have the initial option to become the Constructing Owner. Buckstone Estates may become the Constructing Owner by delivering written notice to the other Permitted Owners of its desire to be the Constructing Owner no less than thirty-five (35) days prior to commencing construction of Segment 1 of the North-South Road. If Buckstone Estates shall either (1) fail to commence construction of Segment 1 (for any reason) on or before April 1, 2005 or (2) fail to commence construction of the Signature Entry Feature on or before April 1, 2005, then the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall have the right to become the Constructing Owner. In such an event, if the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall elect to be the Constructing Owner, said owner shall deliver written notice to the other Permitted Owners on or before April 30, 2005. If such an election is not made by the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, the Permitted Owners shall thereafter enter into a separate written agreement specifying the owner who shall assume the duty as Constructing Owner; provided all other terms of this section shall be unchanged. Any notice required under this paragraph shall include a sketch showing the intended Signature Entry Feature and a cost estimate (including a 10% contingency) for the design and construction costs of the Signa e'-E"r gtur-. ()- GO Design. Qig t ff Entry Fea +. -v: be properly permitted through Collier County and any proposed constr ' m wing walls shall b- .esigied to not unreasonably block pre- existing signage on Parcel 1 or P3rce}� from w of motorist traveling on Vanderbilt Beach Road or the North-South Road to be cor}stru ted•l uts nt t• is—A ti eement. Pn*r to commencing construction of the Signature Entry Feature, e C. 'l. . • w, �+,� . .. 1the other Permitted Owners with a copy of the design plans for the E,•. -. : , lkkc ,Aesign plans shall show the location of the proposed Signature Entry 1"ea 'di e.kE g .- r •,ee t+ er jhalll h4u4len(10)days after receipt of said design plans to review and a... . e`'the s• - -, wli ' prosht;t-ii'ot be unreasonably withheld or conditioned. If any Permitted M has not or does n , .espbn 3Atct,Jhe Constructing Owner in writing within such ten(10)day period,•S‘aliVermitted Owner sha e liee !to have approved such plans. (iv) Parcel 1 an ale 2..Option Out. er of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall have the option to opt out of participation ' tl e/ ,-. �.-s tt Out..--,w"` as described in this paragraph. The owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall each .•;`• .•_ enstructing Owner within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice from the Constructing Owner under subsection (ii) above if it desires to opt out of participation in the construction of the Signature Entry Feature and use of any portion of the sign face that would otherwise be allocated to said parcels. The failure of the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 to respond with said thirty(30)day period shall be deemed a conclusive election by such owner to participate. In the event the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 opts out of participation, then the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive, shall have the option to allow the owner of Parcel 10 to participate instead. In such a case and with the agreement of the owner of Parcel 10, all further references to Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 in this Section shall mean and refer to Parcel 10. (v) Sign Face(s). The following conditions shall apply to the sign face(s): (a) the sign face(s) shall be equally divided among the parcels as defined in this subsection. In the event the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 elect to participate, the sign face(s) shall be equally divided into thirds,with one-third of the sign face(s)for the project on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2; one- third of the sign face(s) for the project on Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive; and one-third of the sign face(s) for the project on Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive. In the event the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 elect not to participate (and Parcel 10 is not substituted), the sign face(s) shall be equally divided, with one-half of 8 011: 3635 PG: 1680 the sign face(s) for the project on Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive and one-half of the sign face(s) for the project on Parcels 4 through 6,inclusive; and (b) each non-constructing owner not opting out of the shared signage shall notify the Constructing Owner of its project name for the sign(s) within thirty (30) days of notice from the Constructing Owner or the Constructing Owner shall leave the sign face blank for any non-constructing owner not timely notifying the Constructing Owner of its project name; and (c) each of share of the sign face(s) shall be equally visible to both westbound and eastbound motorists traveling along Vanderbilt Beach Road. (vi) Cost. The costs for design, permitting, and construction of the Signature Entry Feature shall be shared as described in this paragraph. In the event the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 elect to participate, the costs shall be divided as follows: one-third of the total costs shall be paid by the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive; one-third by the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2; and one-third by the owners of Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. In the event the owners of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 elect not to participate (and Parcel 10 is not substituted), the costs shall be divided as follows: one-half of the total costs shall be paid by the owner of Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive; and one-half by the owners of Parcels 7 through 9,inclusive. - "` c- R C�� r�..., (vii) Payment. Th' •• • cting Own- ••4111 •vide the non-constructing owners with a detailed billing statement for their".:!• • ction cost within fo rve45)days after the completion of the initial construction and installatio/i of . Signature Entry Feature, :< d each of said non-constructing owners shall remit payment to the ConttrucfingiO r ; , t (30) digs'f the receipt of such bill. If any such bill(s) is not paid within said .0 6- -• t all such invoices together with interest thereon at nine percent • � . i ('/o s l ,‘,.5o t linon said non-constructing owner's property,unless and until paid; (J •e • ..• g I t; ma r.. or each such lien in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida agai i4,,se e • co cti-. , er L•.3• �5'znd bring legal action against the non-constructing owner for t1n-constructing own.�.'s cons• c'titin costs; and (c) may, at the Constructing Owner's option, fo toany such lien des •i.• ay•'70;fn the same manner as a mortgage lien on real property, and interest> is nd reasonable attome ' 1Eee `of any such action will be added to the amount of any such lien, and sh .verable in 1= - :, Constructing Owner prevails in any such action. T F C�R(. (viii) Maintenance. The Signature Entry Feature shall be maintained and repaired from time to time,which maintenance and repair shall be performed in accordance with all governmental permits and approvals. The Constructing Owner (or its successor or assign) shall be responsible for such maintenance and repair, unless otherwise agreed among the owners participating in the Signature Entry Feature. The costs for any such maintenance or repair to the Signature Entry Feature shall be shared in the same manner described in Section 9(d)(v) above relating to construction costs. Any owner may assign its obligations for payment of such maintenance and repair costs to a property owners' association or condominium association formed with respect to such owner's parcel(s). The Constructing Owner may assign its obligation for maintenance and repair of the Signature Entry Feature to a property owners' association or condominium association formed with respect to the Constructing Owner's parcel(s). (e) Directional Signage. At the request of the owner of Parcels 4 though 6, inclusive, or the owners of Parcels 7 though 9, inclusive, the owner of Parcel 10 shall provide the owners of Parcels 4 through 6 and Parcels 7 through 9 with a non-exclusive sign easement having an area of four(4) square feet for the purpose of erecting and sharing a directional sign along the eastern side of the North-South Road,where the North-South Road intersects with the access road into Parcel 10. The easement shall be in a location such that that the directional sign is easily visible to northbound motorists. 9 OR: 3635 PG: 1681 10. Stormwater Management. Water management for the section of the North-South Road located between Point "A" and Point "C" shall be provided on Parcel 10. Water management for the section of the North-South Road located between Point "C" and Point "E" shall be provided on Parcel 8 or Parcel 9. Water management for the North-South Road located between Point"E"and Point"F" shall be provided on Parcel 4, Parcel 5, or Parcel 6. Any owner whose parcel has the responsibility for water management under this section may redirect said responsibility to another property through a separate written agreement without the consent of the other parties hereto; provided, however,no such agreement shall release said owner of its obligations under this section. 11. Developer. (a) Identification of Developer. The North-South Road may be constructed either in a single phase or in two separate phases. If the manner of construction is in two separate phases,the first phase of construction shall be Segment 1 and the second phase of construction shall be Segment 2. The phases may be developed concurrently. Any of the owners of Parcel 1, Parcel 2, or Parcels 4 through 10, inclusive, may individually or collectively be the developer of the North-South Road or Segment 1 of the North-South Road. If, however, the North-South Road is developed in phases, only the owner for Parcel 4, Parcel 5, or Parcel 6 may develop Segment 2. The term "Developer" as used herein shall mean and refer to any such owner which elects to cons, a f the North-South Road. The owners agree and acknowledge that Buckstone Es te` s 'r is for M � Segment 1. Buckstone Estates has submitted roadway plans to Collier in connection ,• arp4t.submittal for its properties. If at any time Buckstone Estates ceases(fo ason)its pursuit of the •1- s for the construction of Segment 1 at any time prior to March 1, 2905,r iRkstone Estate shall notify the other owners of the same within twenty (20) days and thereafter another o -, . assume the roe of,the Developer of Segment 1 by notifying the other owners in writi�'• • ►• • - tone Estates fails(for any reason)to obtain permits for the construction, ,e - t [ o, 1.e •,r,, ch 1, 2005 or fails (for any reason) to commence construction of S - o•, •r b.'o e • ;ril 1,�►005,!artgther owner may elect to be the Developer of Segment I and n. ' th- other •',II-rs i ,. `tr of the same. In any case where Buckstone Estates shall cease ti?,.ke a Developer of Sen•eat I aid. Other owner seeks to become the Developer of Segment 1, such iowner shall within enty, ?�,. �days of assuming the role of the Developer of Segment 1 promp a burse Buckstone s -Lf the new Developer's share (see Section 6(c) of this Agreement) o sign and permi texpended by Buckstone Estates for Segment 1. Upon receipt of such pa r t,B t ••° -s..itlsall promptly provide the new Developer with copies of its materials related to the - ,o.•g;and construction of Segment 1. Wolf Creek Estates shall be the Developer of Segment 2; provided, however that Buckstone Estates, with the written consent of Wolf Creek Estates, may instead be the Developer of Segment 2. The Developer shall be responsible for the design, permitting, and construction of those portion(s) of the North South Road (including the related improvements) it will be constructing, with the costs of which to be shared as described herein. The name of the North-South Road shall be Pristine Drive unless Collier County shall rescind its prior approval. (b) Design Plans/Permitting. The North-South Road shall be designed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. If the North-South Road is being constructed in phases, both phases shall be designed and constructed in a consistent manner so as to be compatible with one another. All plans and specifications for the North-South Road shall be prepared by a licensed and reputable engineering firm. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining any permits or governmental approvals necessary or appropriate to construct the North-South Road ("Road Permits and Approvals"). All owners of the Parcels will cooperate in good faith with the Developer and the Developer is hereby expressly authorized by the other parties hereto to apply for or to pursue in the Developer's name (or in the names of the owners of the Parcels or both as the Developer may deem desirable)the Road Permits and Approvals which may be required to construct the North-South Road. The owners of the Parcels further agree to promptly execute, 10 OR: 3635 PG: 1682 acknowledge, consent to,join in, and deliver all documents, applications and other papers which may be necessary to make such applications or to obtain the Road Permits and Approvals. (c) Development of Segment 1. Upon completion of the final plans and specifications for Segment 1, and approval of the same by Collier County,the Developer shall furnish such finals plans and specifications for the construction of Segment 1,including sidewalks, accompanying utilities,landscaping, signage (except for the signature entry feature), and other related improvements to the other owners for their review. No sooner than fifteen(15) days after such plans and specifications have been delivered to the other owners, the Developer shall seek bids for the construction and installation of Segment 1 from not less than three (3) qualified, licensed contractors previously experienced in Collier County as road contractors. At the sole option of the Developer, the Developer may also seek up to two (2) bids from qualified, licensed contractors not previously experienced in Collier County. When such bids are solicited by the Developer, the Developer shall notify the other owners and provide them with a copy of the request for bid and a list of the contractors from whom bids are being solicited. When the bids are returned, the Developer shall provide copies of all completed bids to the other owners. In the event the Developer selects any complete bidder other than the lowest complete bidder,the Developer shall provide the other owners with its reason(s) for selecting the applicable bidder, and the other owners shall have the right of approval with regard thereto, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. If any owner fails to notify the Developer in writing of their disapproval of the selected bidder within five (5) business days after t cif r}otire�thereof from the Developer, such selection shall be deemed to have been appr b' .•" ri Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the other own •'' ' ave no right • • ptsoy al if the Developer selects the low complete bidder. (_ N No less than thirty-five.(35da} • to •mmetng con truc on of Segment 1, the Developer shall provide the owners of the oth- :•.4e : ' * • -.6 , IM.7ng. z Owners") with the following: (i) a cost estimate for the construction a, _. 1, in,1 i d o . '1' of tin cy (hereinafter "Road Plan"); and (ii) a breakdown of the cbstd ti iao e• •i Pr e P ela /q Bach of the Parcels, "Individual Construction Cost"). The No h�n_ ;, et* '11 a (35) days from the receipt of said materials from Developer ce said owner's Ind 4ual�onStrrti, ion Cost into an escrow account with an escrow agent designate` e Developer, whit �s • , j a t shall be an attorney licensed in the State of Florida. The cons of`o funds deposited with-i -row agent shall be available to the Developer through customary constta{ctfi�.-draws. No later K 1100y-five(45)days after the Developer's receipt of a certificate of completion, qe1�t'e�99-le the construction fund account. Any excess funds shall be returned in a pro rata ma s )pon the Individual Construction Costs paid. In the event of a shortage of construction funds to cover the costs and expenses of the Developer in constructing Segment 1 (other than due to non-payment by a Non-Constructing Owner), the Non- Constructing Owners shall be responsible for paying their pro rata share of such shortage. Developer shall provide the Non-Constructing Owners with commercially reasonable documentation which evidences the additional costs and expenses incurred by the Developer and the pro rata share of said costs and expenses for each Non-Constructing Owner. Each Non-Constructing Owner shall have twenty-five (25)days to pay its share of such shortage to the Developer. (d) Non-Payment-Segment 1. Except as provided in subsection (e) below, in the event timely payment of the applicable Individual Construction Cost is not received from any Non-Constructing Owner, then (i) the amount of all such Individual Construction Cost together with interest thereon at nine percent per annum(9%) shall constitute a lien on said Non-Constructing Owner's property,unless and until paid; (ii)the Developer may record each such lien in the Public Records of Collier County,Florida against the Non-Constructing Owner's property and bring legal action against the Non-Constructing Owner for the Non-Constructing Owner's construction costs; and(iii)may, at the Developer's option, foreclose any such lien described above in the same manner as a mortgage lien on real property, and interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees of any such action will be added to the amount of any such lien, and shall be 11 OR: 3635 PG: 1683 recoverable in the event the constructing owner prevails in any such action. The right to foreclose specified hereunder may not be exercised prior to August 1, 2006; provided, however, such time limitation shall immediately cease to apply in the event of a sale, transfer or other disposition of the real property (or any portion thereof or any interest therein)that is subject to any such lien. (e) Temporary Construction Easement. Upon the request of the Developer, any owner when so requested by the Developer will grant to the Developer a temporary easement for access over,across,and upon such portion of its property as shall be reasonably requested by the Developer for the initial installation and construction of the North-South Road. Said temporary easement will be prepared so as to terminate upon completion of the initial construction of the North-South Road. The Developer shall restore any improvements damaged during its use of any such temporary construction easement. (f) Construction Liens. The Developer shall keep the other Parcels at all times free and clear of construction liens, mechanic's liens and any other liens for labor, services, supplies, equipment or materials purchased or procured, directly or indirectly, by or for the Developer (or any entity related or affiliated with the Developer). The Developer agrees that it will timely pay, satisfy or otherwise discharge all liens of contractors, subcontractors, mechanics, laborers, materialmen and others of like character on account of such a lien or the enforcement or foreclosure thereof. In the event of non- payment or non-satisfaction of any such lienjy..theJ) )eloper, the owner of the parcel shall have the right, but not the obligation, to pay off or a." 1:441611--:-.. . ovide the Developer with a bill covering all costs and expenses of the develo•a itil, . i _ suc b y such bill is not paid within twenty (20) days, then (a) the amount of s0`6 .• together with int- - I- -,.-on at lesser of eighteen percent per annum (18%) or the highest rate allow ' .y_,.law shall constitute a lien n the Developer's property, unless and until paid; (b) the parcel owner.m r rc a lierrni-the Public Records of Collier County, Florida against the Developer's property anc le, : ti.,. 1 - I1-veloper for said amount; and(c)may, at the parcel owner's option, Fore sill c`' lr- I ..-d . ..�}e, aid interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees of any such action ` 'll be V d.. t. : . F . t•If- cl}li , and shall be recoverable in the event the parcel owner prevailsiin�' 1' tic a` o.co """" 12. Notices. Any n.• request, demand, i �` 1)ct op,ther communication to be given to any party hereunder shall be - Joatri; g and either hand Nsed, delivered by overnight courier, facsimile transmission, or sent by s - or certified m I t zh receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: --'' �, If to Lindner/Trust 1, — Lindner/Trust 2: c/o Naples Realty Services 4980 Tamiami Trail North Naples,Florida 34110 Attention: Mark L.Lindner Telephone: (239)213-2686 Facsimile: (239)434-2747 If to Wolf Creek Estates. Hoover/Fallen Timbers, 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B-1 or Buckstone Estates: Naples,Florida 34105 Attention: William L.Hoover Telephone: (239)403-8899 Facsimile: (239)403-9009 Any notice demand, request or other communication shall be deemed to be given upon actual receipt in the case of hand delivery, facsimile transmission, or delivery by overnight courier, or three (3) 12 011: 3635 PG: 1684 business days after depositing the same in a letter box or by other means placed within the possession of the United States Postal Service,properly addressed to the party in accordance with the foregoing and with the proper amount of postage affixed thereto. In the event of any notice via facsimile transmission,a hard copy shall be sent via regular mail on the day of such transmission. Any such transmission received after 5:00 p.m.Eastern Standard Time(or Daylight Savings Time,whichever then applicable)shall be deemed to have been given on the next following business day. The addressees and addresses for the purpose of this Section may be changed by any party by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided herein. For the purpose of changing such addresses or addressees only, unless and until such written notice is received, the last addressee and respective address stated herein shall be deemed to continue in effect for all purposes. 13. Governing Law /Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with Florida law (exclusive of choice of law rules). Venue for any action arising hereunder shall lie exclusively in Collier County,Florida. 14. Prevailing Party. The prevailing party in any litigation involving this Agreement shall be entitled to recover from the non-prevailing party all attorneys' fees,paralegal fees and costs incurred in connection with such litigation, at arbitratio ,or-a+. =1 or otherwise, including reasonable attorneys' fees • and paralegal fees in the enforcement;of \ '' - .. k t der. The owners of the parcels herein described shall only be liable for • ' on of thi3' l -,nt during their respective periods of ownership, and in the event any/44001s brought for reco .-i-:$ •f\monetary damages for any breach hereof, the claimant shall look iioleli ts-the-interest of the th- .o ' of the parcel in breach for the recovery of such monetary damages/ - —"� 15. No Third P, r� : 1 L •13 i s\4 •s Agreement are for the exclusive benefit of the parties, their h F - + , • -•s , d as ' 's, excet as otherwise provided herein, and not for the benefit of an}An, ; s A�eikhe deemed to have conferred any rights, express or implied, upoVal third person. No iy tanding a&yithing herein to the contrary, it is recognized by all parties hereto\ t 'me Investors an.-E'-v o (r s,enc. is presently under contract to purchase Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 Contract"). For puts ' f this paragraph, the term "Prime" shall mean and refer only to Primed and Develo s';� ibr to a corporation that is the assignee of the interests of Prime Investors _ . "d under the Prime Contract; provided, e ..im j r�n however that (i) said assignee shall hav�,-t 4u- Ionty shareholders as Prime Investors and Developers, Inc. and (ii) Prime shall provide written notice to the owners of the Parcels within ten (10) days of any such an assignment and the verifying shareholder information. In the event of an assignment not complying with the foregoing terms,all of Prime's third-party beneficiary rights referenced hereunder shall immediately cease. Provided that the Prime Contract is in full force and effect and Prime is not in default under the Prime Contract, it is recognized by all parties hereto that Prime is a third party beneficiary of this Agreement and as such, has a vested interest in and to the terms hereof. Once this Agreement is executed,no changes,modifications and or alterations to this Agreement shall be permitted unless same shall be in writing and has the written consent of Prime; provided,however,consent of Prime shall not be required under the following conditions: (i) the Prime Contract is no longer in full force or effect or (ii) Prime is in default under the Prime Contract. In any event, the requirement for Prime's consent under this paragraph and Prime's third-party beneficiary rights hereunder shall cease and terminate as of October 31,2004. 16. Partial Invalidity. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall, to any extent, be declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, such term or 13 OR: 3635 PG: 1685 provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make it or its application valid and enforceable, and the validity and enforceability of all other provisions of this Agreement and all other applications of any such term or provision shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 17. Modifications. Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement may not be modified in any respect whatsoever or rescinded, in whole or in part, except by the consent of the owner(s) of the Parcels, and then only by written instrument duly executed, acknowledged by all of said owners, and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. No modification or termination of this Agreement shall affect the rights of any lienholder of any portion of any of the Parcels unless the lienholder consents in writing to the modification or termination. 18. Covenants Running with Land. All of the provisions of this Agreement,including all of the benefits and burdens described herein, shall run with the Parcels and shall be binding upon the Parcels and the successors in title to each of the Parcels. The rights and obligations in and to this Agreement are and shall be assignable to any and all successors in title to each of the Parcels, without the necessity of a formal assignment. However, should any party acquiring title to any of the Parcels request a formal assignment,the parties hereto agree to cooperate in the approval and execution of any such assignment. 19. Interpretation of Ow9.ei'`L iite s „,'• essly provided, the term "owner" when used in this Agreement shall be dee -ti,de and me.1 it 1 er and the owner's successors, assigns, or successor in title. / f,/ / ";- - 20. Integration. Ti'iis Afgreetnentembodies The,entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein,and the,”ler ler rS; : s `r ede all prior understandings. 1 21. Counter art 1. I,s gr= y .�xec a in) umber of . � � >n counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be ..p as 'stLan}rp oisiwititure appears thereon and all of which shall together constitute Q d the same instrument / r,, c 22. Recording. This ` 4 ‘'.1ent shall be recorde.', • Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 4TE CIR • {SIGNATURES BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE} 14 OR: 3635 PG: 1686 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. WOLF CREEK ESTATES: WOLF CREEK ESTATES,LLC, a Florida limited liability company •' Pi/ I By: Catalina Land Group,Inc. a Florida corporation, 4 - /. _ its Manager Print Name. ae L• (' • -: b.d . 4e�rt• 11$ By: Q19/211t Print Name: `" ..^ William L.Hoover,President COti STATE OF cl_62... Pv ss. COUNTY OF e ' The foregoing ins$ t ete. py:CaPo O ,by WilliamL.HoveasPresi• 4d�, orporaamans of WoCreek Estates, LLC, a Florida " 1$$�' a sill ..• • '11 • ,:*Si• entities who is personally known to me or( )has produc-• evidence of identification. (SEAL) '.. Oi I -& / . I_/. �`."•••:�� BRANDY k = P :4'IC # * MY COMMISSION 1 DD 158976 �I, C e: AS, EXPIRES:February 16,2007 Item tde Bonded Thu Budget Noisy Services (Type or Print) My Commission Expires: 15 OR: 3635 PG: 1687 HOOVER/FALLEN TIMBERS: 'iPi 1 f ___ 24.-8-- ---,-_________ — Print Na -: o M L. �+•�.�. William L.Hoover,as Trustee of Fallen ( / Timbers Land Trust dated November 5,2003 Yl Pant Name: akki.--- thiCk. STATE OF c1� ) COUNTY OF Ct c )ss. L The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me,this�, , of ( , 2004 by William L. Hoover, as Trustee of the Fallen .- —. d Trust dated November 5, 03, who is (v personally known to me or ( ) h s as evidence of identification. O r1, %J rpt�.FY PU , c- 4 (SEAL) *4)#$..t, MY Yk..`- c'r .r M,a A. / • r * COMMISSION 1 DD 7. �� "�! EXPIRE& lir •"T • • b I�� 'For Foe Bonded ThnJ: .. 7 �.� 1 .- .r ' • t) x E, : 1 • , xpires: 11-1E CIRC 16 OR: 3635 PG: 1688 L L . DNE t RUST 1: ,./ /ad ./ice �– / r. . .. . Print N:,. / _h7 '/i/l! D Mark L. inder,as Trus( under Unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D January 4,1999 ...... 4.77---Te.5n1W311, i.4,,iMr• STATE OF ) r )u• COUNTY OF .. cSS ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me,this 3 of AU e)V Jt- , 2004 by Mark L. Lindner, as Trustee under that unrecord-• land Tru D January 4, 1999 who is ( ) personally known to me or ( ) has produced —I a,AT,,Mill as evid ce of identification. / (SEAL) .da. :.0I -..° r �c ''TA,' .4414 .�: . Name: .A i- AI° ype o• 'Tint) i,ssion .,ices: Alt/ A k `ttttt9tt, uty • 2(0 ,rte . �� ,ii:„--,..-: TSE CII&C ',jlrt '"..!,,,,;.t... t'' » { r r • . 17 • Z l •d 8862 9E6 6E Aid3>0O/1S I a 1 1 NOad Wd9E: l VOOZ-EZ-8 OR: 3635 PG: 1689 • ./"'- NDN RUST 2: /J�!.ir.�i.. �/ 7Pnnt • 1= 4111 / /, 670 Mark L.Linder,as Trustee under •• �� Unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D May 21,1999 .. -7e bill .v.0.,CsL •• STATE OF ) / )ss. COUNTY OF G 5�5C� ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me,this p�3 of A11gC�Jr 2004 by Mark L. Lindner, as Trustee under that unrecord-r,Land Trust U/T/D May 21, 1999 who is ( ) personally known to me or ( ) has produced _Ai i _.-;disk as eviden - of' identification. • / (SEAL) i1t.' �i�i�.i/Js.../��I V 9.:.-A. ,/.4eau% ! . .- G?) L..) (Type or'runt) . :I M Commission Expires t ' - ,` & s t n C 0 11:. V ' if� • .Y 'C f V r `r r '' .. C5) a'.. i O \ \N �ilrl illr!:ii'•" E CIRC • Is • • • El 'd 84362 9E6 6EZ Al2J3NO3/1SI31)I WOdd Wd6E: t V00Z—SZ-8 OR: 3635 PG: 1690 BUCKSTONE ESTATES: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC, a Florida limited liability company il1fBy: Catalina Land Group,Inc. �, 0 a Florida corporation, �� ili` its Manager • Print Name: . , • c.<•� rak a . • a ii ' - By: £ ___________,.,rz Print Name: `tet �. _ William L.Hoover,President STATE OF cLI�Q C\ ) )ss. COUNTY OF D tA.\\ ) R C O Qv The foregoing instrument ••• • • owledged before me, s of 2004 by William L. Hoover as Presi•- t • . . .: Land Gr•up, Inc. a ' orida corpora , the manager of Buckstone Estates, LLC, a Fl• -da '' .-•- -.bili+ co y, on ,-ha of said company who is ( 4 personally known to me or •,:ii...,"d „`•ter as evidence of identification. 'yr t. .iro �a 1 (SEAL) ; 11 Ip*, ! .:• / • I, I 'r riii pr. II:, V ¢ My r• 'T ^. DD 158976 ' * * EXPIRES:' ;,2007 (Type or Print) �,, �' Bonded •: •'` ► ssion Expires: E. C1-- ' 19 OR: 3635 PG: 1691 EXHIBIT A PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Parcel 1: (Owned by:Mark L.Lindner,as Trustee under unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D January 4, 1999) The South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida,less the south 145.00 feet thereof for road right-of-way. Parcel 2: (Owned by:Mark L.Lindner,as Trustee under unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D May 21, 1999) The North 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. Parcel 4: (Owned by:Wolf Creek Estates,LLC) The North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South, ' .•:ar 1:1M i• t er County,Florida. Parcel 5: (Owned by:Wolf Cr. des,LLC) The South 1/2 . th7 o ,. est ' • : orthw. t 1 • of Section 34, Township 48 .u ,Ran le 2• oilier oun , lo 'da. Parcel 6: (Owned by:W if CEsta es,( ) ? The South 1/2 . - Southeast 1/4 of th � orth• esti 1 .f Section 34,Township 4' . •th,Range 26 East, - . �. orida. Parcel 7: (Owned by:Bucksto. 's LLC) 1� The South 1/2 of the No • "/4-of 3: outheast 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. Parcel 8: (Owned by: William L.Hoover, as Trustee of the Fallen Timbers Land Trust dated November 5, 2003(owns west half of described parcel)&Buckstone Estates,LLC(owns east half of described parcel)) The South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. Parcel 9: (Owned by:Buckstone Estates,LLC) The North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida Less and except that real property conveyed to Collier County in that certain Warranty Deed recorded in Official Records Book 3573,Page 0782 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. 20 OR: 3635 PG: 1692 Parcel 10: (Owned by:Mark L.Lindner,as Trustee under unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D January 4, 1999) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPT VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA;THENCE RUN NORTH 89°46'10" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,322.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE RUN NORTH 02°14'20" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, FOR A DISTANCE OF 145.13 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, A 175 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 02°14'20" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SO •.', 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34,FOR A DIS +' w c .' - T TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 1/2 *A I. lr'- "'L t` THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34;THE I y1 ' NORTH 89°47'3 q ` ' ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 2 07 I SOUTHWEST 1/4 0 : T . SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, SR • ill _ 'I" S 22.04 E TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF E 52 SF "-I SO 1 S 1/4 sF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 it OF SAID SE 01',�, i ►•a A •S . •13'2\6" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE )F t ~I All: t. I.( .O CHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, 1%..�� `jea • •4. 8 F. T• • :DINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-W• sr" y."- RB ROAD; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°46' I" a•ST, ALONG THE '►• 'TH RIt' - '+F-WAY LINE OF SAID VANDERBILT "4;,�M ROAD, FOR A L�, - Ali 'S..' 1,322.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEG ' 0.t•CONTAINING 15.: ' • ' ORE OR LESS. Less and except that10.0410:. �• _ ' -. K Collier County in that certain Warranty Deed recorded * a10IR:« ook 3573,Page 0780 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florio:. Parcel 11: (Owned by:Buckstone Estates,LLC) The West 330 feet of the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. 21 OR: 3635 PG: 1693 GENERAL LOCATION MAP OF PARCELS AND GENERAL LOCATION OF NORTH-SOUTH ROAD EXHIBIT "B" Genera/Location Map of Parcels #6 n RCO 0�-1 �F 1 #4 _ #1 1 #7 ArgwsLrw cam" moot Lane Island Wok PUO Rasidentiel 1/47 - 'Yr C Union Hilt #1 A A 2 #10 Vandarba Antal ROM `A-1 EXHIBIT"B" 22 OR: 3635 PG: 1694 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT COST ALLOCATION Parcel Owner's Share of Intersection Improvement Costs 1246 LIL #4 `11 #7 \ Carmagers Land tonswin• 1111 , s find t'j i % may Tom C,&tvsLad Wand Walk --- -- ` PUD Reddened i J C 12% Missinn Mr A #1 Shopping Canter #10 9.5% A2 9.5% yr d he Beeth Road A-1 EXHIBIT"C" 23 OR: 3635 PG: 1695 POINT"A-1"TO POINT"D" PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST BLACK BEAR RIDGE PHASE I Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost \xf,R COU cP ?_ ,, Prepared for: Lry HOO R ti- �;,I jj `fa, 117, ff Off, GLS TIE cit -/ . . Q.Grady Minor&Associates,P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs,FL 34134 (239)947-1144 (239)947-0375(Fax) May,2004 C5L 1-liQA- Norman . bP.P.E. I E ilcock Florida Registration Number 47116 r.LOMMUalrbeig„rd►.na.,y OPCcorr,.o.a.. EXHIBIT"D"-Page 1 of 3 24 OR: 3635 PG: 1696 Black Bear__RFdee-Phase I Budget Of-site improvements Item-North-South Outer Loop Road Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 AC 53,500.00 57,000.00 2 Silt Fence 2,800 LF $1.50 S4,200.00 3 Fill 8,500 CY S9.00 576,500.00 4 Final Grade I LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00 5 Valley Gutter 2,700 LF S530 514,850.00 6 r Limerock Base(compacted and primed) 4,800 SY S7.50 536,000.00 7 12'Stabilized Subgradc 5,750 SY S2.25 512,937.50 8 3'Asphalt 4,800 SY S8.50 $40,800.00 9 Signing&pavement markings I LS 56,500.00 56,500.00 • 10 Sodding 5,800 SY 51.50 58,700.00 1 I 5'Wide Concrete Sidewalk 1,500 SY SI6.50 $24,750.00 12 4'Limerock(under sidewalk) 1,500 SY S4.50 S6,750.00 13 Maintenance of Traffic I LS $2,500.00 52,500.00 Sub-total %Mnl$, ` 524798750 Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements entity Unit Price Total I Tuan Lanes Complex(WB Rt.EB La) J 000.00 580,000.00 2 Signallzation Y C__.Wi x.00 5130,000.00 3 Side Drain Drainage(4 DBI,DBL nun 36") ` �l /4 Lighting (1v {100:00 525,000.00 Sab4otals. " ,,,5270,000.00 Item-North-South Outer p ' d a Sanitary Sewe _ • quint' " \Unit Prig, T4tat 1 8'PVC Force Main(C.900 Clues At t �a•s"�- $28,000.00 2 8'Plug Valve w/Box ? �1,i 0.ir,,," $2,760.00 3 Hot Tap Future 16'Force Mali on ) "'a 1$5,500r00 I `.-�s''t .; P36.261118 Item-North-South Oute '; J '- r Water Main Qoatstky Unit 'tial —Tall Hot Tap Existing 30'Rdnf Con 1Q, {! ""�• I (or alt-1/b and tap new prop 24" 1 LS' 53 I t t i t'11,000 Go 2 12'PVC Water Main(CL 200) lot. 1.400 1X 1.'(0 X35,700.00 3 12"Oats Valve w/Box 2 PAt /S3,000.00 4 Fire Hydrant(Complete Assembly) (,)44., 2 EA v-:t' , $4,800.00 5 Permanent Bacterial Sample Point ,ii x.00 $1,000.00 6 Temporary Bacterial Sample Point ' Li 'r'.00 5900.00 7 Air Release Valve _ 51,550.00 $3,100.00 Sab-Total ;" ., ""` MR $83,500.00 Item-North-South Outer Loop Road- Drainaie Quantity Unit Price Total I Control Structure 1 EA $4,000.00 S4,000.00 2 15"RCP 100 LF $23.00 52,300.00 3 18"RCP 350 LF 525.00 $8,750.00 4 24"RCP 1,200 LF $34.00 540,800.00 S Valley Gutter Throat Inlet 6 EA $2,000.00 512,000.00 6 Grate Inlet 4 EA 51,700.00 56,800.00 7 Junction Box 8 EA $1,850.00 $14,800.00 8 IS'Flared End Section 1 EA 5900.00 $900.00 a Sab-Total q�e" Mia 590.330.00 Of-SiteTotala ,;:;.:>,.','.;5'.s'' ,; ',":3 $728,097.50 5/14/2004 EXHIBIT"D"-Page 2 of 3 25 0R: 3635 PG: 1697 Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Assumptions Construction stake out excluded. Permit fees excluded. Impact fees excluded. Engineering fees excluded. Testing services excluded. Street lighting excluded(except VBR intersection). Conservation Area No mitigation,or replanting costs included(clearing only). Sewer • Sewer profile has been adjusted to include <` ��+ CO service for the potential lots on the ComcY Ail, Drainage Water _ 1 Will provide water service stubs for 24' C.... Earthwork and Clearing ! , f" Fill from lakes is limited to only 1 ` vation depth below existing_.y p ., D. • . commendation. An average of 1.6 ft of fill over the eveloped site. t Rock excavation,rock crushing and attritteis incidental to the lake exae . () Paving • Sidewalk cost included in initial infrastructure. i L_ CI S Offsite Inner loop road to be built by others,including turn lanes to serve site(no costs assumed). Vanderbilt Beach Rd 6 lane improvements in place(I.e.force main). Vanderbilt Beach Rd temporary turn lanes not required(I.e.payment to county to build improvements to support project and to built as part of 6 lane improvements). 2 - �'� �,�4,0-c.ca..n; a .- ----Jr t om, /6 `yo EXHIBIT"D"-Page 3 of 3 26 OR: 3635 PG: 1698 Q. GRADY MINOR,P.E. 1415 Panther Lane, Suite 232 Naples,Florida 34109 Phone 239-591-6795 Fax 239-591-6732 July 23,2004 RE: Estimate of Engineering, Surveying&Permitting Costs for Pristine Drive Segment One Engineering Design and Permitting of Pristine Drive $35,000 Engineering Design and Permitting of Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Int. Improvements $10,000 Pristine Drive Permitting Costs $1,500 Estimated Costs for Engineering Design and Permitting $46,500 Construction Engineering for Pristine Drive $9,372 Construction Engineering for Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Int./ROW Improvements $4,565 Total Estimated Costs for Constructio igirftelOD $13,937 Construction Surveying for Pris a, ve . - $18,656 Construction Surveying for Vde . Beac i Rd. Int./RO p •vements $6,017 Total Estimated Costs for Cos I cti -' eying $24,673 c . *I110 Y C 7."4 '0 \i .p Li 41EC1. C 308A51engrcosts EXHIBIT"E" 27 *** OR: 3635 PG: 1699 *** INITIAL DENSITY ALLOCATION-WOLF CREEK PUD Wolf Creek PUDs Initial Residential Unit Allocation #8 #5 81 81CCO #11 #7 61 WV 41 — -- cad Nageas Land jam\ (Tom CraifsLand Nand Wok PUD Reiidwwtl --- C 81 1yecs„ Wart,Mk 1 Shopping Caner 64 A-2 Vanderbilt Sawch Road A-1 Total of 147.69 acres and 591 Units EXHIBIT"F" 28 LykinsDave From: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 4:25 PM To: Richard Yovanovich; R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; Fiala Donna; KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick; BosiMichael Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: CSA - Density - Runs with the Land.pdf Dear Commissioners: Black Bear Ridge concurs with Mr.Yovanovich's assertion that the presently pending 215 unit Pristine Reserve site plan exceeds the allowable 80 units density on the Mederos parcel. Black Bear Ridge also concurs with Mr. Yovanovich's concern about Mr. Anderson's representation to the board about Pristine Preserve needing a preserve reduction to accommodate larger lot sizes, when in fact the pending site plan indicates that it is really needed to accommodate a density increase. Black Bear Ridge also concurs with Mr.Yovanovich that any board approval of a reduction in preserve area should be with a stipulation that development of the Mederos parcel is limited to 80 units, since the owner elected to go the "insubstantial change" route rather than the "substantial change" route. As to who owns the remaining 103 density units per the Cost Sharing Agreement, Black Bear Ridge disagrees with Mr. Yovanovich. Notwithstanding all of the documentation that Mr. Yovanovich just provided you, the fact is that the Cost Sharing Agreement allocates density, and it is clear that the density"shall run with the Parcels." See the attached two pages from the Cost Sharing Agreement highlighting these provisions. Since all of the Black Bear Ridge lots are now privately owned, and Stock turned over control of the HOA(and thus the common area) in 2013, Black Bear Ridge residents and their HOA now own 100%of the Black Bear Ridge "Parcel" and Stock owns 0%. Since the Cost Sharing Agreement provides that the density"shall run with the Parcels," Black Bear Ridge owns the density, not Stock. While Mr. Yovanovich states that"at no time was the excess density assigned to [Black Bear Ridge]," the Cost Sharing Agreement clearly provides that the benefits run with the land and "without the necessity of a formal assignment." Black Bear Ridge appreciates that Stock is doing the right thing as the developer by re-committing to complete its already-existing obligation to pay for the off-site intersection improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Pristine Drive. This has been a documented developer obligation since as far back as 2005. Sincerely, Steve Bracci %, Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com 1 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. From: Richard Yovanovich [mailto:ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.corn] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 3:48 PM To: R. Bruce Anderson<rbanderson@napleslaw.com>; burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; Fiala Donna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Subject: RE: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Commissioners, The petition before the BCC pertains to the modification of the preserve area. As I previously stated, it is my understanding that the Mederos parcel is limited to a density of 80 units. Mr. Bracci provided you with some of the legislative history supporting my understanding with regards to the PUD limiting density. Mr. Anderson stated to the BCC that the change in preserve area is related to increasing the lot size. However, the current plat submitted by his client clearly shows the purpose is to increase density beyond the PUD permitted density of 80 units for the Mederos parcel. Increasing density cannot occur through the Insubstantial Change process. Therefore, as long as the approval of the reduction in preserve size is conditioned upon development of the Mederos parcel being limited to 80 units, my client does not object to the petition filed by Mr. Anderson's client. I appreciate that the prior property owner had other site plans with a higher density. However, there is no evidence that the prior site plans were approved by the County. Accordingly, the prior site plans are irrelevant and not consistent with the PUD. As to the ownership of the 103 units,that is a private matter. We do not agree with Mr. Bracci's position on ownership of the units. Because Mr. Bracci spent most of his allotted time addressing ownership of the excess units, we are providing copies of some documents addressing the density rights in the PUD. The Purchase and Sale Agreement clearly identifies that Stock Development purchased the excess density. Also attached is an assignment document assigning developer rights to Black Bear Ridge Naples, LLC. Finally, the Cost Sharing Agreement addresses the excess density. At no time was the excess density assigned to Mr. Bracci's client. Mr. Bracci also spent a lot of time addressing the payment for the intersection improvements at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. My client has already agreed to pay the 30% share of Black Bear Ridge set forth in the Cost Sharing Agreement for the right and left turn lanes at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road.The 30%share was based upon an allotted density of 203 units. Only 100 units were built. Black Bear Ridge, LLC remains the owner of the unbuilt 103 units. The unbuilt units have not been assigned to the residents of Black Bear Ridge or to the Homeowner's Association. Please contact me if you have any further questions. 2 Richard D. Yovanovich Esq. COLEMAN Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. LM 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 0 YOVANOVICH 300 Naples, Florida 34103 (239) 435-3535 KOESTER (239) 435-1218 (f) This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above email address.Thank you. From: R. Bruce Anderson [mailto:rbanderson@napleslaw.com] Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 1:00 PM To: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor(a@colliergov.net; McDanielBill <WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net; michaelbosi@colliergov.net Cc: Steve Bracci<steve@braccilaw.com>; Richard Yovanovich <ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com> Subject: RE:Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Importance: High Dear Commissioners, Mr Klatzkow, Mr Casalanguida and Mr Bosi, This email is in response to correspondence sent to you by Mr Bracci and Mr Yovanovich concerning a private disagreement about ownership of unbuilt dwelling units in the Wolf Creek PUD. My client's application is for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD ("PDI") master plan to reconfigure a conceptual preserve area depicted on that plan, nothing else.The reconfiguration does reduce the conceptual preserve area on the master plan on my client's property, however, the PUD preserve requirement is not being changed and will remain in compliance if my client's application is approved.The only question for the BCC to decide is the single simple insubstantial change applied for: IS THERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REASON THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT APPROVE WHAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS APPROVED,TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPACT AN ISOLATED URBAN WETLAND ON HIS PROPERTY AND MITIGATE FOR IT BY RESTORING WETLANDS AT THE PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK ON AN OLD FARM FIELD OWNED BY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY CONNECTED TO THE BIG CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY? The Water Management District claimed jurisdiction on the isolated wetland and issued its approval for the landowner to impact the wetland and mitigate offsite on much more environmentally valuable lands.The County, as recommended by your Planning Director, should also approve that change by approving the insubstantial PUD change. My client has several different site plans with differing numbers of dwelling units it is considering.The prior owner of the property had a site plan for 254 dwelling units on the land now owned by my client, so claims by others that your approval would somehow increase density are flat out wrong.Approval of my client's insubstantial change to the PUD master plan has nothing to do with how many homes he can build, whether that be 254 proposed by the prior owner or a lesser number. Allowable density is not at issue. My client believes that prior 254 unit plan results in an inferior housing product, and he seeks to reconfigure the preserve area to provide deeper lots, and a better housing product at a density at least 15% less than that planned by the prior owner. Please contact me if you have any questions. 3 Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFYPASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTORKFY5 AT LAW 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson(c�napleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. From: Steve Bracci [mailto:steve@braccilaw.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 05, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc: burtsaunders@colliergov.net; pennytaylor@colliergov.net; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net>; andysolis@colliergov.net; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; R. Bruce Anderson <rbanderson@napleslaw.com> Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci to' r y`,1 ma . • • .. Steven J. Bracci, PA,Attorney at Law, 9015 Strada Stell Court, Suite 102, Naples, Florida 34109 Office: (239) 596-2635; Fax: (239)431-6045; email: steve@braccilaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS TRANSMISSION ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING THE DIRECT WRITTEN AND COMMONLY VISIBLE COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN. USE OF ANY ATTACHMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN RECEIPT OF THE DIRECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CONTAINED THEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NO TRANSMISSION OF UNDERLYING CODE OR METADATA IS INTENDED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. 4 011: 3635 PG: 1677 construction of Segment 2 shall be deemed to be the payment of said owner(s)fair share of the cost of the North-South Road with respect to Parcel 3. 7. Wolf Creek PUD. (a) Allocation. The Wolf Creek PUD encompasses Parcel 1,Parcel 2,Parcels 4 through 6, inclusive, and Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. The Wolf Creek PUD permits 591 residential dwelling units. Unless otherwise provided herein, density shall not be transferred from one parcel to another within the Wolf Creek PUD without prior written permission of the owner of the property losing density. The Wolf Creek PUD allocated the 591 residential units as follows and as shown on Exhibit"F"attached hereto and made a part hereof: Parcel 1-64 units;Parcel 7-41 units; and all other parcels in the PUD- 81 units each. Upon the execution of this Agreement, 41 dwelling units each shall be automatically transferred from each of Parcels 4, Parcel 5, and Parcel 6, at no cost, to Parcel 1, with a total resulting transfer of 123 units to Parcel 1. Accordingly,the number of residential units allocated to Parcel 1 under the Wolf Creek PUD shall be 187. (b) Option to Purchase Additional Density. The owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ("Purchaser")shall have the option to purchase(in addition to the density allocated to Parcel 1 and Parcel pursuant to subsection (a) hereof) from the owner of Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive, ("Seller") up to 92 dwelling units which have been allocated"+ `i . 15. rection (a) hereof to Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. Said option may be exer '�. . r• r Acr,knore than two transactions on or before December 31, 2005 ("Expiration p': -' e purchase pn = ch individual dwelling unit shall be $500.00. In the event Purchaser elec 4 o exercise this option, chaSser shall,on or before the Expiration •Date, notify Seller of the number . ,o btpurehas .. Clo •ng.\if any such purchase of dwelling units shall occur within 20 dayfr ofheller''s re..-•: • notic=from ch ser. The purchase price shall be paid in cash, wired funds,ora casfiier s c " an'office in Collier County,Florida or such other method as may be ac(c tabl t 1 `° - 's sole iscretion. Seller shall have the sole discretion to determine oi3t 43• • e,1v lling ar 'a signed. Purchaser shall pay all costs associated with the • er\of dwelling units. s o tion' I terminate on midnight of the Expiration Date and be of no a'i orce and effect. }� � '4- (c) Contingency. Ini , t any statute, law . :I 5%,..) ce,resolution,rule, or regulation is adopted and enforced by the state, . + :thPr . . entity (or any agency or department thereof) that would have the effect of •n`• Al 'u rn: i e number of dwelling units that can be constructed within the Wolf Creek PUD(in its en ref)/ ,the parties agree that Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be collectively allocated 33%of any such temporary allocation and Parcels 4 through 9 shall be allocated 67% of any such temporary allocation; provided, however, that such temporary allocation shall not have the effect of reallocating density among the parcels. For the purposes of this paragraph only, the term "temporary"shall mean for a period of no more than twelve(12)months. 8. Native Ve¢etation. Unless otherwise agreed by the owners of the various Parcels, all Parcels within the Wolf Creek PUD shall be designed to stand alone. All Parcels with indigenous native vegetation, as determined by Collier County, will be required to preserve or replant 25% of such native vegetation, as described in Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, or in the event of a repeal of said section, such other section of the Collier County Land Development Code controlling the same subject matter. Each of the Parcels shall provide for its own native vegetation requirements as shown within the Collier County approved environmental impact study that was submitted in conjunction with the Wolf Creek PUD rezoning petition,unless otherwise agreed to by any one or more Parcels owners. Parcels providing in excess of 25% native vegetation can transfer such credit to another Parcel under different ownership only upon written agreement of the property owner transferring the excess credit. 6 OR: 3635 PG: 1685 provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make it or its application valid and enforceable, and the validity and enforceability of all other provisions of this Agreement and all other applications of any such term or provision shall not be affected thereby,and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 17. Modifications. Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement may not be modified in any respect whatsoever or rescinded, in whole or in part, except by the consent of the owner(s) of the Parcels, and then only by written instrument duly executed, acknowledged by all of said owners,and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. No modification or termination of this Agreement shall affect the rights of any lienholder of any portion of any of the Parcels unless the lienholder consents in writing to the modification or termination. 18. Covenants Running with Land. All of the provisions of this Agreement,including all of the benefits and burdens described herein, shall run with the Parcels and shall be binding upon the Parcels and the successors in title to each of the Parcels. The rights and obligations in and to this Agreement are and shall be assignable to any and all successors in title to each of the Parcels, without the necessity of a formal assignment. However, should any party acquiring title to any of the Parcels request a formal assignment,the parties hereto agree to cooperate in the approval and execution of any such assignment. 19. Interpretation of Owner' 0ii`=Zvtpressl y provided, the term "owner" when mo used in this Agreement shall be deen}e( i e1tiae and me.1 i - er and the owner's successors,assigns, or successor in title. y, , r, r t, y 20. Integration. 's A%gre�embodies a entire '+d ding of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein,an the% - - -:., r , ; .,:. ;.s.1,,,, ede all prior understandings. 21. Counter . 's •gr,-•• . • ,, exec -, inJ ,iy)number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be �pt-i_.-. as . s .. • .. --.,;:o/ ture appears thereon and all of which shall together constitute ,, d the same ins' . 22. Recording. This !a :i ent shall be recor Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 0t. \ �, 71iE E` '�-( `'' • {SIGNATURES BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE} 14 I Ex parte Items - Commissioner Burt Saunders COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda )c 16.A.4. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Arthrex Boulevard, Application Number PL20170001077. V NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM Consent Agenda 16.A.5. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes Phase 1A, Application Number PL20170001378. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM I Ex parte Items - Commissioner Burt Saunders COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A.4. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Arthrex Boulevard, Application Number PL20170001077. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM Consent Agenda X 16.A.5. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes Phase 1A, Application Number PL20170001378. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM