Loading...
Ex-parte - Solis 07/11/2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Andy Solis 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: Rupnow and Palay, 1/20/17; Rupnow and Palay 2/24/17; Strain 3/24/27; Strain 5/5/17; Corace meeting 6/22/17; Halas meeting 7/7/17 Correspondence: Brookes letter 2/7/17; Woodward letter 4/3/17; Rupnow packet 4/20/17; Caron letter 7/3/17 Emails: numerous (and how!) emails from constituents and other members of the public Calls: Schiffer call 4/3/17 GoodnerAngela Subject: phone call - Frank Halas, Kalea Bay; ending up being in person at the office Location: phone call Start: Fri 7/7/2017 1:30 PM End: Fri 7/7/2017 1:45 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndy Required Attendees: Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com) Call him 1 GoodnerAngela Subject: Richard Corace, Kalea Bay Location: Kalea Bay Start: Thu 6/22/2017 11:30 AM End: Thu 6/22/2017 12:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndy Required Attendees: SolisAndy Categories: Offsite Event 1 GoodnerAngela Subject: Mark Strain Location: BCC Conference Room, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34112 Start: Fri 5/5/2017 1:30 PM End: Fri 5/5/2017 2:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndy Required Attendees: Mark P. Strain (markstrain@colliergov.net); Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com) Categories: Commission Chambers Kalea Bay review 1 Excerpts in order of occurrence, from CCPC hearings over 3 days starting in December of 2007 and completing in February 2008 on the Cocohatchee Settlement Agreement. December 13, 2007 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, no -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the concern I have is that in fairness of what neighbors would expect if they did read the PUD document and look at the setbacks in it, obviously you had a little footnote that could get you out of it, they would expect the one-half the building height. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, unless they -- and if read the PUD document, the document says if there's a common architectural theme and the buildings are skewed, the buildings could be closer together. That's a common occurrence in a lot of the PUD documents that are approved. I believe even Land Development Code talks about a common architectural theme and being able to put buildings closer together. And we've had this discussion with other projects, Pelican Bay as an example, where on a lot of the high-rise pads because of a common architectural theme buildings are close together, other than the one-half the sum of the building height, because they've met the requirements of the common architectural theme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe to resolve this, Brad, the common architectural theme language is prevalent in many of the older PUD's. This one has had it in. We weren't part of the approval of that process. Do you see something in these buildings that is inconsistent with the application of common architectural theme as found in the PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, the common -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what our objective here is today is to show where the settlement agreement may be inconsistent with the PUD. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the common architectural theme is an irrelevant part of this conversation. Yes, that's easy to obtain. And I'm sure that anybody building them out would do that. Page 72 December 13, 2007 The concern I have is just take the silhouette of these buildings, you've moved them to within like 120 feet from each other. So essentially we're creating a wall of buildings down the side of Vanderbilt. The height of the buildings is 200 and -- much higher than 200, because you have accessory structures, and you're public pushing them in closer and closer. Certainly closer than the chart, is what I think somebody would expect. And it also says that they can be. And I guess Susan, you're the one that would determine the word can, so can these be put closer? MS. ISTENES: If they meet the requirements of the PUD, which is common architectural theme and skewed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't staff rely upon professionals as well to opine on that -- MS. ISTENES: Well, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and have it? I think a professional -- do you have any letters to that effect? MS. ISTENES: Actually, we do. I don't know that you have them. MR. SCHMITT: Do you have a copy of that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've seen it, Susan, yes. MR. SCHMITT: We have a letter from an architect. I think the issue here, Brad, is that the PUD language is clear from the standpoint the language just says where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can -- and that's the word, can -- be administratively reduced. That is demonstrated to us. The issue is unless we can verify it doesn't meet those requirements, I have e no option but to approve it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my -- MR. SCHMITT: It's just the wording that was in the PUD. I can't change the wording. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then why do we have a Page 73 December 13, 2007 development standard chart that gives setbacks that you know you're never going to use? I mean, isn't -- the concern I have is that the subtlety of that footnote versus the power of a development chart. I mean, I don't think that's fair. From a planning standpoint I see no advantage of twisting these buildings a little bit and sliding them closer together. I mean, what is the reward planning wise? MR. SCHMITT: I don't argue that. But I can't put myself back in the late Nineties when this PUD was approved and others with similar language that -- it is approved. They have a right to ask for that under this criteria and it's not subjective in nature. I guess if the board wants to make that decision, then the board can -- I have to defer to the board, if they choose not to exercise the word can. And I'm going to turn to the county attorney, because we had this discussion even yesterday -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, let me interrupt. Before we go to the county attorney, we cannot hear today -- we're not here to debate and rewrite the PUD. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're here to interpret the settlement agreement as if it -- to see if it meets the PUD. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you're not wrong in some of the comments you're making, but the PUD is a 2000 year document. I don't know how we can go back and change the PUD unless we do it through the settlement agreement. But the settlement agreement isn't addressing that kind of a change in as far as interpretation of the architectural theme. It's not saying eliminate that or enforce that, ifs simply saying here are the setbacks. If you disagree that the setbacks listed in the settlement agreement are inconsistent with the PUD, I think then that's a recommendation that you can suggest. I haven't seen where you've Page 74 December 13, 2007 proven that yet, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not proving it. What I'm saying is in the settlement agreement they're discussing the fact that they can reduce the setbacks to 100 feet. So the setbacks are certainly an issue of the settlement agreement. Why are they in it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm sorry, I didn't see that. MR. YOVANOVICH: The reason we put that language in, if I can, is we wanted to -- and I think staff agrees with this -- eliminate administrative or administrator's discretion and have a clear, measurable standard as to the closest possible distance between these structures. That's all we were trying to do is create certainty through the settlement agreement. And I think staff agrees that it's easier for them to go look at this standard and say okay, if there's a modification in the future to the SDP, these buildings can be in this locating. Instead of going back to the provision of they've got to be common architectural theme and skewed, and do we argue over if there's a one degree or a half a degree, does that meet the skewed definition? We just wanted to take those arguments out, come up with what we thought was a more measurable standard. I think staff agrees it's a more measurable standard, and it's easier to implement than the current standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, and here's what you put in there: The minimum separation for the habitable portion of the buildings shall be one-half the sum of the height of the habitable portion of the buildings, not to exceed 100 feet. There's no site plan that ever had this thing 200 feet separation. So why do you even tease us again with the one-half the sum of the height? There's no intention to ever provide that. The concern I also have is that the original PUD where they were parallel doesn't meet the intent of the PUD. So obviously somebody -- and it's best shown in the October 12th PMS document. It shows where somebody had a concern with the fact that whoa, wait a minute, Page 75 December 13, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, because the garage still extends out past the edges of the building -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well beyond the habitable area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- why I wanted to have it clear in my mind. Okay, and that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would be my thought on it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- fine. If that's what the presumption is, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't think it has a huge effect on the overall scope. Jeff, can you comment on that aspect of the relationship of the settlement agreement to the PUD and what we are supposed to be doing in regards to that today? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, the Board directed that you look at the settlement agreement and make sure that it comports with the PUD and with the board's prior directions and the LDC. Not to change it. I'm not entirely sure we need this extra language in here. From what I'm hearing from planning commission is that the PUD controls. And whatever the PUD language is the PUD language. This additional change I believe comes from that side of the table. It may change what the PUD really means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly what I think our goal was here today and our charge was, was to point those things out. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and Ms. Caron, did you have something you wanted to say? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Mr. Yovanovich, when your client met with the neighborhood, were distances between those buildings shown on that plan that you presented to them? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm being told yes. I wasn't at the meeting. I'm being told yes. Page 78 December 13, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Could I see that plan? Because the original drawings that we got up until a week ago never showed any distances between buildings. So we could have had that information apparently months ago, but we didn't get it? Your planning commission didn't get it. But you're telling me that the neighborhood recognized that there would be 100 feet or 150 feet between buildings, because it was on the plan that they all looked at? Okay, so here's the real situation. Go ahead and repeat what was just said to you. MR. YOVANOVICH: That -- what I was just told was that there was a scale on the plans, but a physical line between the structures was not on the plans. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it did not say on anything that the citizens looked at here's building one and here's building two and the distance between those buildings is 150 feet, or whatever it might be. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: It did not say that. MR. YOVANOVICH: It did not say that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. So they really, in just glancing at plans in a neighborhood information meeting, would have had no reason or no understanding of what those little skewed plans that they were handed actually were meaning. So they couldn't have questioned that at the time. I think that the language being put in here is an attempt on staffs part to sort of be off the hook when these buildings finally go up and everybody realizes that they have this massive wall of buildings with only 100 or 150 foot separation between them. And when the complaints start coming in they don't want to have to deal with it. Now, in addition there is the question in our LDC about compatibility and light and air and view corridors. And I want to hear from staff on the acceptability of moving those buildings closer Page 79 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's everybody but us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Its present forum or elected -- MR. KLATZKOW: Or appointed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or appointed officials. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They forgot us on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're usually so harmless, Brad. Okay, so on paragraph 15, the second line after the word elected, it will be elected or appointed officials. Anything else on Page 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 8? Anybody have any concerns on Page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 9? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just want to talk about -- I'm sorry, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 8. It's stating in here that the SDP's are incorporated in the document. That's not what was stated in item two. So Jeff, is that a concern? I mean you say the settlement documents consist of and then we're adding something that's -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's always been -- and maybe this is just me. It's always been my idea to give the board a package with a bow which would include the settlement agreement, the amended PUD and the finalized site development plans so that they were all approved at once. Now, the site development plans would be contingent upon approval of the board. But once the board signed off on it, they were ready to go. That's been my concept of this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we're not -- in other words, Page 13 February 25, 2008 within your bow there could be the illusion that we o could we kill as inco •orated in this documen tYou'd still have your-glow, only there won t •e t e impression t at we helped you tie it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about referenced in this document? Because see, Brad, I think the problem with this sentence is if you don't reference to what you're saying they need federal permits for, the potential claim then, the lack of permitting for anything in the future might be there. So if we use reference instead of incorporated, would that work? MR. KLATZKOW: That would be fine, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: That works. Is that okay, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else on Page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nine -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nineteen has the same, elected or approved officials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's figure out where we're going to put that then. We would put that right after the same former -- present/former appointed or elected -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Elected or appointed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Elected or appointed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's on Page 9. Last page of the settlement agreement is Page 10. Are there any changes or questions about Page 10 before we go into the amended PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 14 January 11, 2008 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think that paragraph 10 really relates more -- other than -- the first sentence or two have to do with the height of the buildings, which are pretty much a footnote to the bald eagle management plan. The second part of it, the underlined portion of it has to do with building separations. So this particular paragraph has less to do with the bald eagle management plan than it does with the separation of these buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree with you. But at the last meeting, and I have my notes and the county attorney's notes that said we want to discuss the bald eagle management plan at this point. And for some reason -- if we don't want to do that now, we want to do that later, that's okay with me. I was trying to follow the pattern set forth previously. So we can go -- we'll just continue on with paragraph 10, if everybody would prefer to just look at the height issue on this one. I'm not even sure this is where the height issue came up originally. I think it came up in paragraph 14, which is habitable. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, no, I'm looking at the last one we have, and it was in 10. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the height. And I brought up the concern on height, concern on measuring from habitable. I did go back, research even the building codes. Habitable is defined exactly as the applicant claimed. It's livable area. Occupyable (sic) area, which is what I was actually describing at the last hearing, habitable is certainly a subset of it. But it would be places of work, places of entertainment and stuff. So my concerns that I had last meeting are totally gone, and I apologize for any confusion I'm sure I caused. Page 45 January 11, 2008 separation of structures. And it said there had to be a common architectural theme and the buildings need to be skewed and basically not parallel. So the commission saw this. We provided an exhibit when we did the neighborhood meetings. Yet if you look at the exhibit, you could see that the structures were not 200 feet apart, we were only going about -- did we have a line on there that says the distance between buildings? No. But if you looked at the scale that was on that drawing, you would see that these buildings were not 200 feet apart. So I don't think we ever sold this as they were going to be 200 feet apart, else we wouldn't have had the common architectural language in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the common architectural language, let's make that simple. You're building the exact identical building. We could discuss whether that's good or bad. I personally wonder. So it's obviously common, they're twins. Everything, everybody is going to look alike, according to your SDP. MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, they're quintuplets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they're quintuplets. So we don't have to worry about them being a common architectural theme, they're identical. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've covered that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the concern is though -- but I think there's a clause in there that I know you're hanging on, and that is that if you do skew the buildings or twist them, then you can move -- the buildings can have less than the dimensions shown. Now, I think what that means from a planner, and Susan's our chief planner, that you have a spacing required. Yes, you can twist them a little bit, and if that does cause that dimension to be less, that's not a problem. I don't think it means no setbacks or no separation once you twist them. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're not trying for no separation. Page 50 January 11, 2008 We're just trying to implement the provision in the code -- I'm sorry, the PUD, that already says if you do these things we can minimize, reduce the building separation. I provided some language in an e-mail that says it has to be a minimum of 100 feet for the habitable tower portion of the structure, the parking garages will still meet their one-half the sum of the building height. We don't think under this site plan, frankly, that it's going to look like a wall of buildings. We think that it's going to look very nice. I mean, frankly, they're angled all the way up. The only issue that you were raising is there were two buildings that arguably were not skewed and they were parallel. So we wanted to make it clear, we didn't want to get into an argument down the road, you know, parallel means one thing in geometry. And I think I told you the last time I was here I wasn't very good at geometry. But once you skew it one degree, you're no longer parallel. And we just wanted to say, listen, you're going to end up with buildings that are a minimum 100 feet apart on the towers. We think from a view corridor coming down Vanderbilt Road with the landscaping buffer that we provided you, this is going to look fine, it's going to look nice, it implements the existing PUD, and it wasn't a change to the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But back to what you said earlier, Richard, I think much like -- remember when I wanted you to look at this drawing, you wanted us to look at the other drawing, you can't see the building masses on those other drawings? I think most people would not notice the distance. Obviously I had to take out a scale to see what the distance was on the submitted PUD to find out what they are. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here in a little bit. So if we could get to some point you feel we can break, Page 51 January 11, 2008 Brad -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he walked away, Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I know that. No, I'm just suggesting if you at some point -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can take a break any time you want. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I was just answering my client's question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Anyway, my concern is that we put a chart in the table, that's really what prevails. And the exhibit, you know, there's a lot of caveats on it stating that it's subject to change and all the other things. So I think anybody relying on that data would be relying on the table. I think what the table means, and we can get some testimony from staff, that there's a massing expected. In this case everybody expected a square of open space between these buildings that, yes, if you rotated them or did something like that, of course the corners might swing in less to that dimension. So in other words, if it's 190, 180 feet once you rotate them -- let me wait till the side bar is over. M.R. YOVANOVICH: You know, we could debate this point probably all day. The PUD says what the PUD says. There's a footnote that specifically allows for the buildings to get closer together if you meet the criteria of the PUD. We're not asking for any changes of the PUD document related to building separation. What we simply are trying to do is make it less ambiguous for both staff and us and for the general public to understand what the separation will be. And what we're saying is it will be a minimum separation for that livable portion of the building of 100 feet. I wasn't prepared and didn't think we were going to debate the original PUD document. It was adopted, we're implementing it. We're trying to make it clear. Had they not wanted -- if there had been an Page 52 January 11, 2008 intent that you would never be able to reduce the building separation, there wouldn't have been that footnote. And candidly, there wouldn't be a provision in the Land Development Code itself that allows for common architectural theme to result in the reduction of building separation from the minimum standards. It would have said thou shalt never be closer than 200 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here. And we'll come back at 10:15. Mr. Vigliotti and Ms. Caron both have questions at some point in this issue. So when we get back, Brad can finish with his. We'll get into Mr. Vigliotti's and Ms. Caron and we'll go from there. 10: 15 we'll return. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, we'll resume the meeting where we had left off. And Mr. Schiffer was working on some questions concerning the last two sentences on -- starts on Page 6 and on Page 7 of the settlement agreement. After he finishes, Mr. Vigliotti was next, and then Ms. Caron. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess, Rich, just to go back. One thing, you mentioned that in the LDC there's a section of code that says if you have a common architectural theme -- and again, this county, one of its problem is it makes everything look the same, but we'll assume that's good, that's a given -- that if you rotate it you can reduce the separation between buildings. Is that -- I don't think that's in the LDC. There is something similar to that about clustering but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and that's under -- the common architectural theme talks about clustering. You go through a conditional use process. We went through a public hearing PUD process, so there was a public hearing process that occurs. And I don't believe -- and I could be wrong, I don't believe there Page 53 January 11, 2008 is any requirement for either skewing or rotating the buildings to meet the definition of common architectural theme for clustering. So instead of what you see on the visualizer where you have the buildings angled away from Vanderbilt Road, you could probably line them all up on Vanderbilt Road and really create the wall that you're fearful we'll be creating. Now, I think you have to look at all of this together. We have landscape requirements that we've provided for you. And this is actually the sight line study that shows you, as you're driving down or walking down Vanderbilt Drive, you're not going to see the buildings. So if you're not going to see the buildings, what's the impact on this necessary space between the buildings? Now, from a distance, I don't care where you are, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet, if you're a half a mile away, the buildings are going to look close together, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet. So I think if you look at what we're doing, we are meeting the requirements in the existing PUD; we are further away from Vanderbilt Drive than the minimum required; we have met the skewing and the common architectural theme. We're not asking to change the PUD, we're just asking to make it clear that the minimum distance has to be 100 feet. Because frankly, probably under the PUD we can get even closer, which I believe was one of your concerns when we talked the last time. I believe you asked me, Rich, can't you guys theoretically get within a couple of feet of each building. And we've said no. And we've answered that by saying the towers have got to at least be 100 feet from each other. So we thought we had addressed a lot of the concerns while staying consistent with the existing adopted PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess maybe, Mark, if it would be okay, let me have Susan come down. Because the way that clause really reads is if that if you meet certain conditions it can be Page 54 January 11, 2008 administratively reviewed. Again, you know my opinion is that the intent of something like that from a planning concept, not from just looking at words and playing Philadelphia lawyer, from a planning concept, that means that if a building rotates, that would tend to close dimensions, and the dimensions would swing in. And if you do that, you won't be penalized because of the fact that you've skewed the building. But let me ask Susan, because she's the one that would be making that judgment. Or Ross might be. Richard, let Ross -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, Pm sorry. I thought he was going to sit over there. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, zoning and land development review. Susan's asked me to address this issue for you. The way we understand the PUD is -- well, the basic question is, is the reduction in setbacks or separation of structures limited by the PUD document? And the answer is no, the separation is unlimited. I can't see any grounds in there for intent to reduce it a certain amount, or it would have been specified. So the question I ask myself is does the applicant have the right to do what he did? And the answer was yes. There simply£is nothing that limits the amount of reduction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Ross, you think what that meant -- here's what I think it meant. I think it meant that if you have two buildings, you have a separation, in this case a square, that if those buildings rotate, they close in on each other a little bit. And that's what that means, that essentially the scale of the project -- remember, I'm talking purely in the planning concept of buildings and mass -- that the scale of the project stays the same but the dimensions do close slightly when you rotate them. So when you're telling me that clause meant -- and this was what was given to the public as a development standard, that if you slightly skew your buildings, which is what they've done, you have no side Page 55 January 11, 2008 setback requirement anymore? MR. GOCHENAUR: Basically that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Really? MR. GOCHENAUR: Correct. Now, as far as the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From a planning concept you really feel -- MR. GOCHENAUR: As far as the intent. When the PUD was approved, I don't think we're going to find anything that explained the intent as far as a possible reduction in the amount or the distance. I think it was unlimited. It's unlimited here. I don't see where we have the right to tell the applicant that there's a limit to which he can reduce that separation. It's simply not stated in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the point. And this will be the last time. I don't want to be redundant. But I think as planners, not as reading little words and, you know, reading between lines, is that when you describe through the table the separation of these buildings to have essentially a square of space between them, that if you rotate those buildings a little bit, that square can open or close a little bit. You're saying that they essentially tricked us then by giving us a table, giving us a setback, knowing all the time that they're never going hit that description, they're never going to hit that dimension. MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, I'm not suggesting anyone was tricked. But I am saying that the board approved the setbacks as they appear in this table. And that reading these, without full knowledge of the intent or any real intimate knowledge of the PUD rezone itself, I have to say that this is the way I feel constrained to apply it. And I don't think Susan disagrees with that, which is why she asked me to explain this to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So as the one who made the administrative decision that if a building in this case was slightly skewed, that eliminated the requirement for building separation? Page 56 January 11, 2008 MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, that's my understanding of this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At our last meeting we discussed this particular point in depth. I believe almost everybody weighed in at different points, we spent a lot of time on it. What I had said is I'm not happy about it, I don't like it, but it's in the PUD. We're not here to change the PUD, nor can we. I just think it's something we have to live with and move on. And I believe it was the consensus of most of us, as I said, that it is the way it and we have to live with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a comment and then I've got a comment. Ms. Caron, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and it will be a comment at this point -- well, actually, I'll ask a question first to the county attorney. Do you agree that staff has no authority to make a judgment on the separation of these buildings? MR. KLATZKOW: I think --just for visually, because I'm more of a visual person, if your buildings were like this and you required 200 feet, okay, and then they said you can make it slightly askew and thereby build them like this, I think that's an absurd interpretation. I think what the -- I think the way it reads is that there's discretion here -- and that includes this board as well because you're making recommendations to the board here, that if they're going to make this slightly skewed, that yes, they can reduce this, that's appropriate. The question is how much of a reduction is appropriate. And that's my view on that. Now, the planning director disagrees with that, and that's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you for that. Because Page 57 January 11, 2008 I think this is a critically important discussion to be having because this is not going to affect just this project. This will affect projects coming down the road. And if we suddenly decide that we have no authority -- no planning authority to decide whether 250 -- what in reality will be 251-foot plus buildings could essentially be five feet apart, the absurdity of that judgment is just beyond me. If this board thinks that 100 feet, when it should be 200 feet, is the correct way to go, then you'll make that decision. But I agree with Mr. Schiffer, that we're going to end up with essentially a wall of buildings 100 -- you know, barely 100 feet apart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had a comment I wanted to make. And I saw this sentence telling us that the applicant had agreed that the buildings would never be less than 100 feet apart. I don't know why the applicant wanted to do that, because basically the PUD stands on itself and they probably have a very good case on that footnote if they wanted to make one, regardless. So I'm wondering, to get off this point, because we're only discussing it because of these two sentences in the PUD that now with staffs testimony here today and the clarifications that have come out of discussion today by staff, why do you need these two sentences? You still got the PUD that dominates, and we're off the discussion and we go on to the rest of the paragraphs. So I'm asking the applicant, originally I saw a version of this document with those two sentences struck, because apparently someone at one time felt the PUD stood on its own. I understand your position in trying to voluntarily minimize the distance in which they could be put at, but it looks like that's causing a lot more controversy than the effort may have been worth. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will tell you, we think the benefit of that sentence is both to us and to the county so when there's personnel changes over time, there always are, or different people sitting in your seats, people could interpret the document differently. And we would Page 58 January 11, 2008 like that certainty because, candidly, we need to know that this site development plan will be approved, or something similar to it if changes happen will be approved in the future and not be subject to a debate over words in the future. And we thought -- I think staff would prefer to have the clarification so we all know it won't be less than 100 feet. We would like that in the document to provide certainty to us so -- and reasonable minds can disagree about what things mean, and we're just trying to make sure that this is clear that we have certainty in the future. And that's why we've asked to keep that in. I know it's an uncomfortable conversation we're having, but that's why it's in, and we think that it's beneficial to both sides to have that language in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the language only states a minimum. To get to that minimum, you still need to bring in the common architectural theme issue. So the language doesn't clear up any of the debate about that issue. It simply says you have a minimum of 100 feet that you can get to but you still got to fall back on what the debate has been to get there. So I'm not sure why the sentence helps you, but if you want to leave it in, then we will go forward. I just suggested, since I had seen it struck in the prior version, the first version that was sent to this committee back last year didn't have -- had that struck through as being omitted. Then it was put back in when you all realized it was coming to us, for some reason. But that's fme. It seemed simpler without it. We're on paragraph 10 -- Brad, did you have another question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My comment was, based on Ross's testimony, just take it out. Because we're ultimately going to vote on this thing. I certainly could -- I don't know how we're going to vote, if we vote by number, line item veto kind of thing maybe. But if we vote on this thing as a whole, I would never support that. Page 59 January 11, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're voting on it. I think we're simply making recommendations and we can all, on each recommendation, say we support it or don't support it. We're here to tell -- I thought we were here to describe to the BCC what the settlement agreement means in interpretation of the PUD that they formerly had, the differences. If some of us see this as a different interpretation than what the PUD meant, then that could be our recommendation. Others of us may not see that as a different interpretation. You're focusing on your dislike of a footnote in the PUD, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's a different interpretation. That's all I'm getting at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Make it clear, I'm focusing on the geometry of the construction of this project. Let me ask Ross one quick question before we jump away. Ross, this is in for SDP, the setbacks are shown, I saw some correspondence where you didn't accept the setbacks because the buildings were parallel but then they slightly skewed them and therefore triggering that footnote. And you've given us your interpretation of that. Have you signed off on the setbacks of this SDP already? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. They're revising the setbacks not for the high-rises but principally for the clubhouse and the single-family homes. For the high-rises, I've accepted the resubmittal that revised the setbacks and skewed the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially Richard is concerned about the future generations, you've signed it off, it's a done deal. This clause doesn't mean anything in this agreement anyway, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Let's keep in mind that this is almost like a package. The settlement agreement and the site development plan are Page 60 January 11, 2008 all going to the board at the same time. And, you know, defining what the setback is in the settlement agreement doesn't -- I don't know really where it gets us anyway, since the site development plan is going to have the setbacks anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the applicant wants to leave it in. We can recommend to take the two sentences out and that can be done with it, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The concern is not about the present. But if we go in the future and we determine that we need to make a modification to the site development plan and we move the buildings a foot one way or the other, we don't want to get into a debate again on this issue. We want it to be understood and clear that we can go ahead and reduce the setbacks between the buildings. We don't want -- we don't want to be stuck with, Mr. Yovanovich, you moved it a foot. We think this new group doesn't agree that you're allowed to put buildings closer together. That's why this provision is in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Then I'm going to want some clarity. Because my understanding was that we were going to have a final site development plan and that's how this development was going to get built. I'm hearing now that well, maybe we're going to make changes after all this is over to that site development plan. So that what ultimately gets built is not what ultimately is going to go before this board. And I don't -- it's okay by me if it's okay with this board, but that's what we're saying here right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that this settlement agreement is based upon the approval of the three SDPs. Once they're approved, they're done. Are you going to tell us that there's going to be more -- well, they'd be outside the settlement agreement then, would they not? MR. YOVANOVICH: They would be outside the settlement agreement. What we're looking for is clarification of what does the Page 61 January 11, 2008 PUD document mean in this settlement agreement. So if there is a change, people will say, Mr. Yovanovich, you're right, the buildings can be, as long as they meet the common architectural theme. The buildings are not parallel, they are skewed, you can be closer together but not less than 100 feet apart on the residential tower and the parking garages, some of the building height. So when we go in the future, we know we're allowed to do that. No maze, no language of, you know, what is this distance of, you know, what is -- how much skewing do you need to do to meet the intent of this. We want to know that if there is a change, that's how the PUD document will be interpreted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I myself, I thought the PUD language stood on its own. Your bringing it into this document is causing concerns with this panel. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm listening to the public discussion about it and there are people who are less certain that it stands on its own and it's clear. And that's why we're trying to make it clear through the settlement agreement, so in the future we don't have a changing of minds as to what is clear in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments on paragraph 10? If not, we have to figure out how to resolve this paragraph and what kind of recommendation as far as the language goes we need to provide to the county attorney to include in the next draft that is produced. Any comments from the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, what I would prefer we do is remove this language, because -- and let it be something that the administrative staff take care of. If Richard is concerned about a future planner viewing it the way I would view it -- and remember, I have a degree in architecture and planning -- then that's a good concern. Page 62 January 11, 2008 But the point is I would never want it to look like this board endorsed this kind of interpretation of the setback. I don't think it's right, and I think it should just be struck. It should not be a problem. Quick, get your administrative stuff in there. And Ross is today's professional and he says that you can do what you want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tend to agree with you in the sense that I don't think the PUD needs any more clarification. I think you can manage yourself under the PUD. That's what you accepted. I don't see the need for these two sentences. I'd just as soon they were gone as well. I just don't see the need for them. I understand your concern, Richard, but you're a capable attorney and I'm sure you could argue whatever rights you had aren't going to go away whether these two sentences are there or not. Any other comments from anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to say one more thing. Is that when we get PUDs we get a development standard table, which everybody says that's the genetic code of the project. And then we get a drawing that everybody says can be fluctuated quite a bit. The standard really gave everybody the impression of the separation of these buildings. To do what we're doing now I think is a big mistake, the way it's being interpreted. Enough said. I mean, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, when I read a development standards table, and you know I read them all because every single meeting I harp on the footnotes. I read this one. I wasn't here when that one was approved, that was way before my time. But had it been here, I would have known what it meant, I would have known exactly what it meant and what the footnotes mean, because I realize they're critical, they're that important to what this committee approves. So I don't know if when this went through people didn't know what they mean or didn't read it. I sure would have known what it Page 63 January 11, 2008 meant and would have read it, so I'm assuming the other bodies on this board would have done the same thing. So I'm not in your camp in that regard, but I do believe that these two sentences are not needed, and my recommendation would be that they just be struck and not included as part of this settlement agreement. Is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I really agree with that. Do you need a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we need a motion, Mr. Klatzkow, or just consensus? MR. KLATZKOW: At the end I'm going to ask you to go through this so we have certainty as to what these changes are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let's just get a consensus. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, don't you feel that the Board of County Commissioners wanted our opinion on such a thing on whether it's a reasonable distance between structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wanted our opinion on how the settlement agreement differed than the PUD, how it changed the effect of the PUD. That's what they specifically said on the tape that we reviewed. If they wanted our opinion on all the aspects of this project, we could do that. But we would need about a month at the rate we're going and every day of the week to review it. I don't think they wanted that, nor would they be able to read that if we sent it to them. So we need to stick to the focus. Look at the settlement agreement, look at the issues in the settlement agreement and describe to the BCC how they vary from the PUD language that's already been approved or suggest remedies to that effect. And that's what I think we need to be focusing on. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But shouldn't we see what the consensus is as far as this board is concerned relative to the separation somewhere along the line, whether it's now or done at the end of the Page 64 January 11, 2008 hearings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think this is a popularity vote on the PUD's application. If it is, then that's -- we can do that, but I'm not going to take part in it because I don't think that was part of the direction this board was given. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I wasn't talking about a popularity report, I was talking about something that's whether ifs good planning or bad planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that differs too amongst the people and the experience they have on this board -- or experience in that field. And I'm not sure everybody has the expertise to opine on what's good and bad planning from a perspective we'd be looking at this. Because we certainly haven't gone in, analyzed the PUD in regards to the presentations at the time and weighed in on the way this is utilized in other parts of either this county or the parts of Florida. So those are areas I don't see where this board had the --needs to get into. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Frankly, I prefer the language out. The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going ask for a -- I'm going to go down the line as far as recommending removal of this language. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself, yes. Page 65 January 11, 2008 Is that pretty much, Rich, about a year ago we discussed this? MR. YOVANOVICH: Joe, the intent of this paragraph is whatever the federal agency says to us about how we deal with the bald eagle will apply to this project. If it means we have to relocate a building, which means we have to amend our SDP, that's what we have to do. It also means that I don't have to go through a public hearing process to amend the bald eagle management plan to implement what the federal agencies tell us to do. We don't, frankly, want to be where we are today again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So if the Army Corps tells you or U.S. Fish & Wildlife tells you that you've got to move your building, you don't have to come before a public hearing? So the plan that we've been looking at, and they tell you you have to move it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm still subject to the SDP rules -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- you don't have to come through a public hearing process? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. But I'm still subject to the PUD requirements for that change to the SDP. And I'm still subject to the SDP rules. Just like, for instance, the way we talked about earlier is if we come in and amend the SDP and we move the building one foot, one building one foot and we have to amend our SDP, I'm not coming back to the planning commission. Same concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the Fish & Wildlife or any of those agencies come back with a change to the bald eagle management plan that requires a change to the PUD, then you have to come back through a public process. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. If they moved us into a nonresidential area, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the same as anybody else. MR. SCHMITT: Same as anybody else. An SDP, if it's Page 97 January 11, 2008 administerial in nature, it's a change to the SDP. As long as it's changed and meets the requirements as defined in the development standards, it would be -- well, depends. A substantial or an insubstantial change to an SDP. Those are not public hearings, those are administrative in nature. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, substantial is. MR. SCHMITT: No, ma'am, substantial only means -- and there's always confusion on this. Substantial only means than it is a more intense process. It may involve water management and other elements. An insubstantial change is just a truncated review, meaning it goes to a few reviewers, because it is very specific in nature. It is not a shortchanging of the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off on paragraph 13. And part of that paragraph was the bald eagle management plan. I think we've gone through the bald eagle management plan, we've got a series of changes. I want to make sure staff is aware of the changes we suggested to the bald eagle management plan. Was someone taking notes or cross-outs or strike-throughs as we were going along? Okay, so you know what language we struck. You know what things we suggested adding, like the circles at 330 and 660 feet. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're all set on that issue. So we can get a draft of that plan back with a draft of Mr. Klatzkow's rewrite of the settlement agreement after today's meeting to make sure it checks out in our final reading of this whole mess. MR. KLATZKOW: If we just get a reading back of what --just for the record so Richard understands and everybody understands, we need a written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want it right now? MR. KLATZKOW: Either now or at the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's fresh in our minds, let's finish it Page 98 January 11, 2008 agreement is any deviations that they request from the SDP. Other than that, isn't it all staffs job to do it? Is it our job to check staff? You know what I'm afraid the issue we're going to get back on to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But I thought where we were going with the SDPs was purely a supplemental information for us to understand the terms of the settlement agreement, how they're being interpreted and incorporated into the SDP. For example, your issue on habitable height. That's the perfect example of why we needed to see the SDPs. I don't think any of us are water management engineers or people like that that need -- or piping engineers that need to get into the details of the connections and all that. But I think that we would look at the setbacks in the SDP, and are they what we believe the settlement agreement intended. And if they didn't intend it or it's different than the PUD would have allowed, we need to point that out. But that's the extent of it. I didn't see us getting into every little nut and bolt of the connections and detailed portions of the SDP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My thought is that since we removed the deviation of setbacks, that's a good issue to look at, then it's purely up to staff to review the SDP. Other than that, we're second-guessing staff in their review of the SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with you. I have very few comments in the SDP. However, in going through the SDP, I did find that there were no development standards for accessory structures or for, like, the clubhouse. In the golf course section of this PUD, you have a clubhouse height limitation of-- you have a height limitation of 20 or 25 feet. Their clubhouse far exceeds that. So I couldn't understand where they got the standard from. And then I found out there really wasn't a Page 136 January 11, 2008 standard. And I think they're proposing standards in some of the paperwork we've got in front of us here. So that's why I would suggest we move through those five pages of graphics first, and then we can get in -- and once we analyze those, it may eliminate all the questions we may have on the SDP. And those, for everybody's reference, are the one that starts with the setbacks from Vanderbilt Beach Drive. They have attached to them two tables that are in the SDPs as well. And then there's a graphic showing a landscaped buffer, and of course the berm doesn't have a height on it, that's a problem. And a couple more details and then the second floor plan of the building. So the first one of those plans is an exhibit showing the setbacks in relationship to Vanderbilt Beach Road, and actually between the towers, both the towers and the garages. Same type of setbacks that are on the SDP. So I'd certainly like to open up the discussion, starting with that document. Does anybody have any -- now that we've spent some time on the settlement agreement, we better understand how it applies. Do we have any problems, questions or concerns with the settlement agreement's application versus the PUD application on that site plan that was provided to us? It's not the tabled one now, it's just the graphic one to begin with. Anybody have any issues? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, what are we going to do, are we going to approve these and say yes, these are acceptable dimensions for this building? Because obviously you know where I'm going to be. I thought booting the side setback back to staff kept us from endorsing those setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. In fact, I don't think we were asked to approve the SDP. We were asked to approve or recommend conditions -- we were asked to provide an analysis of the settlement agreement. Because the settlement agreement referred to the SDPs, we Page 137 January 11, 2008 need to look at the SDPs to make sure that everything is there. It didn't say we have to like it or we have to agree with it, it simply has to be consistent with what is in the intent of the settlement agreement. And if it isn't,we need to tell the board that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Obviously the side setbacks are measured improperly. The distance between buildings, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do you think that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I don't think that the distance is one-half the sum of the heights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the PUD -- in two sections the PUD allows for common architectural theme, which eliminates that criteria as testified to by staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't agree with that. That's your impression. This is my impression. And when I went to school -- I have a planning degree, I'm an architect and planner. From my interpretation this does not meet the separation distance between buildings. We went through it already and staff tram ed me so I don't know why we're persisting here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN:: Well, It you guys don't want to review the SDP, I don't need to review it, because I came through my review only needing a couple of things. I'll be glad to fall back on the issues I had problems with, and that was the fact there were no development standards for the clubhouse and the cabanas. And if that's -- go ahead, Mr. -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe, and I hope you got the e-mail that I forwarded from Jay. Actually, I sent it to Jeff and I think Jeff sent it to you. I sent it Friday, January 4th to Jeff. And I'm pretty sure he forwarded it to you. It was a suggestion that we essentially incorporate the -- for all structures other than the high-rises, we incorporate the R-2 development standards into the PUD document for all of the other Page 138 January 11, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thursday, the 14th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thursday, the 14th, yep. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 8:00 to noon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8:30 to noon, right. MR. SCHMITT: I need for the applicant to understand that that is a fairly -- though it seems like a long time, it's a short time. We're going to need their focused cooperation in getting documents to us, the county attorney finishing its portion as well. You're going to want the documents on the 14th, we're going to have to get them to you in the mail out minimum by the 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a meeting date. What I would suggest is the only thing you send us now is the draft version of the settlement agreement, as we've discussed, and a strike-through of the PUD. We don't need anymore SDP plans. But we will need an acknowledgment from staff that the SDP plans that they have by the date of our next meeting are consistent with the agreements that we have in front of us. MR. SCHMITT: All right. Well, then I need to turn to the applicant, to Jay and his team. Today's the 11th. I've got to take everything that we've discussed -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm going to be doing that. MR. SCHMITT: Well, they've got to take it and apply it now to the SDPs as well and get a resubmittal to us. I'm going to need that -- Pm going to need a resubmittal and we need to do a review. So you're going to want some kind of a testament, I guess, or us attesting to the fact that the SDPs are in compliance as well. I am looking to the applicant here. They've got time frames to meet and I've got to have at least -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, we have March 3rd open if you want more time. But it's either the 14th of February, the 25th of February, March 3rd, or you could even go to March 18th. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought what we were trying to do was Page 144 January 11, 2008 make sure we have a development standards document that we can all live with, and then staff will then apply that development standards document to whatever our submittal is, with the goal that our submittal, our revised SDPs consistent with this new development standards document will ultimately go to the Board of County Commissioners at the same time. I don't know why we would have to have the SDPs resubmitted, re-reviewed before we come before you all, because you're just setting the development standards. You're not going to be actually reviewing the SDPs for consistency with those development standards, are you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think we need to. And I don't know if-- does this board feel the desire to get into those plans? I don't think we need to. Well, then we don't need to worry about the SDP. MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. But the commitment -- and I want to make sure Rich understands that when we bring this to the board, that's with your recommendations, your basically recommendation of approval, I assume, by that point of the settlement agreement, the PUD. And with that I want to be able to tell the board as well that the SDPs are in compliance and ready to be approved, subject to the approval and signature of the settlement agreement. So that's what we would bring to the board. Is that not correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought we were bringing them both at the same time. MR. SCHMITT: That they both come at the same time. Staff would approve -- MR. KLATZKOW: I just want this over. MR. SCHMITT: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, the settlement agreement, PUD, SDPs, all at once for the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the board. But this panel can finish up with the settlement agreement and the PUD at the next meeting we Page 145 January 11, 2008 have. And then the staff reviews everything subject to those. Mr. Schmitt goes forward and says yes, the SDPs are consistent with what the planning commission recommended, here's where we're at. And then if the board changes it, so be it, but at least we've gotten that far with it. MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. Then that basically gives the applicant more time for a submittal -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And we could be done in about a week, Joe. We didn't want to put you guys in a position to have to get it done in a week. MR. SCHMITT: That gives me time, based on -- subject to your approval of the 14th, it gives the staff the time to review and have a reviewed settlement agreement, a strike-through and underlined PUD document that is commensurate with the settlement agreement. And then we will sometime, whenever that date may be, and that's up to the county attorney and us with the manager to define a date to bring this to the board. But when we bring it to the board we will then affirm to the board that the SDPs are in compliance as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a comment and Mr. Murray had a comment. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to ask you to repeat what you said about setting the development standards. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we're going to essentially do is we're going to revise the PUD document. It's going to become a development standards document which will show heights or whatever setbacks, whatever we just talked about changing, the R-2 standards becoming the standards for everything but the high-rises, All of that is going to be in one document. You're going to say yes, this is what we recommend the development standards document should be to go to the Board of County Commissioners. And then we have the burden of submitting an SDP that's consistent with those development standards that are Page 146 January 11, 2008 going to be in that document. We'll get that to staff in short order. But to put them in a position, make sure that the development standards document is done accurately so you can review that and review all the documentations to make sure it's consistent with that I think might be putting staff in a hard place to get that done by the 14th and run the risk of errors. And nobody wants that. We're all trying to make sure that this is done accurately, the SDPs are consistent with the development standards document, and the board can have all that in front of them at the same time to say yes on the settlement agreement, yes on the SDP. If they say yes to the settlement agreement, the SDPs get issued the next day, they sign the document and 15 days later we write you a check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's going to do the settlement agreement? MR. KLATZKOW: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who's going to do the PUD? MR. KLATZKOW: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When can you have those done by? MR. KLATZKOW: The more time you give me, the better. I can have it done in a week, but it just means setting aside everything else. So the more time, the better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Jeff, we're trying to work to your schedule. Is the 14th too -- MR. KLATZKOW: I can have it done by February 14th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you'd have to have it done in advance of that because you'd have to go over it first with the applicant and then with us. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I can have it -- you can be looking at this February 14th with plenty of time to review it. But, you know, if you give me more time, that would be fine, too. MR. SCHMITT: We would hand it out at the meeting February Page 147 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we -- I mean, I put it there because I thought you'd be the one to ask for it if I didn't, so -- I mean, you know, six is more there for your benefit, Brad, because you were the one that made the issue of it. And I was trying to be more courteous to you since it's the district you live in, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. But I mean, first of all, the outcome isn't what I would like, but the concept was is they were trying to bring in something into the settlement that would lessen the separation between buildings, and I thought we kind of left that �� ����� ��� � ��� didn't want the look. The PUD says what it says, F� as CCPC to get involved in endorsing something that I didn't think was correct. So do we have to discuss this at all? Is it something that was in the original agreement that the commissioners know about, or is it something that they brought in and we took out? In other words, will they be missing this if it's not there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And again, I -- Brad, I was trying to be as thorough as possible to get everybody's strongest feelings on record. If it's not needed, if-- and you were the one primarily questioning this, you and Donna. If you guys -- I don't need it there. Again, I was trying to make sure I got as much of everything everybody wanted to say on here. We could leave it with the first two sentences and note that the Planning Commission decided to let the language of the PUD remain as the interpretive language for this particular issue and leave it at that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, we could have a shorter thing, I'll agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, thank you. And I think I understand Brad's comments, because there will be some discussion, I submit, with regard to the issue of angled or skewed buildings. But I think this works to the benefit of the elucidation that comes from it. Page 81 February 25, 2008 The issues that we faced and qualified and that with all of that, nevertheless it ends up with the fact that it can be administratively dealt with. And we've edited it pretty well. I think it gives the commissioners an opportunity to realize the extent of what we went into this. So I would be an advocate for keeping it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, and then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm definitely an advocate for keeping the discussion in there. I believe that 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. (At which time, Commissioner Adelstein enters the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER CARON: In fact, during the 2000 BCC hearings, Ron Nino, who was presenting at the time stated for the record that this project -- and he went into great detail about this to be visual for the entire room so that those people who just didn't understand feet and inches could also have a visual idea of what was being discussed. -4 evelopment standards as Pelican Bay relative to spacing a` . The development standards are exactly the same, he said, one-half of Neither the petitioner nor his agent bothered to correct this fact, so the board accepted it at face value. I believe, as the County Attorney said -- stated on the record, that both staff and this commission have every right to exercise good planning judgment when it comes to this matter. And I'd submit, based on my last statement, original intent as well. And I think we should exercise that right in any recommendation to the board. I am absolutely an advocate. I think if anything, I would make this six a stronger statement than what's there. But at any rate, I am Page 82 February 25, 2008 definitely in favor of keeping it in. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, if I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: --just briefly make a statement. The Pelican Bay PUD has provisions for the reduction of building separation when there is a common architectural theme. So Mr. Nino was correct when he made that statement. And if you were to read the Pelican Bay PUD, you would see that for common architectural theme you don't have to meet the one-half the sum of the building height. So I think to put in context what Mr. Nino said, that was true, there was a footnote to allow this to happen. I don't think it's fair to characterize those conversations that the developer or whatever staff said means that there was not the possibility for there to be a reduction in building separation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well — COMMISSIONER CARON: And again, what we discussed was that absolutely, Brad went into great detail about what skewing those buildings would do and how it would change the setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, I think. Brad, then we'll go to you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, I endorse that 100 percent. I think we should put a statement in there, and I would agree that -- I would even favor a stronger one. But we were told we could not go only so far as far as changing what had already been in there. But I certainly think expressing our opinion as to what we feel is in order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is to Rich. I don't know how familiar -- at the original hearing, was it pointed out that the drawings people were looking at, that the separations in the table were not met? MR. YOVANOVICH: I wasn't there. Page 83 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use the microphone. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I was not involved in this project during the original hearings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there anybody in the room who was there? MR. YOVANOVICH: The original 2000 PUD adoption hearing. Mr. Griffin was there. MR. GRIFFIN: There were no buildings. MR. YOVANOVICH: But there were no buildings that I know of, or what I'm being told. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The PUD in the back of the original -- I mean, the master plan in the back of the original PUD I think was one of those typical blank PUD's that just shows "R". COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then when did the first plan that showed buildings, when was that developed? For the Bald Eagle Plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: The SDP's -- is it about three years ago? I've lost track of how many years ago we submitted the SDP's. Four years ago? When those SDP's were drafted, they were consistent with the Bald Eagle Management Plan. That's when five buildings were identified with the building separations that you see in front of you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get a consensus on whether or not we want to leave this as written or if we want to make a change to it. I'll start with Mr. Kolflat. You want to leave it in? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you want to see it altered, or do you care if it's left in or not? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I wanted to pull this away from the Planning Commission. I did not want them to deal with Page 84 February 25, 2008 dealing with what this footnote meant and what the other plans meant. If we do leave it in, then I certainly would like to be involved in the writing of it and would certainly be a lot stricter than the one you have in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, I don't -- a lot stricter. You want to get into the debate on the meaning of the intent in the PUD. That wasn't an issue that was presented in the settlement agreement. I simply was trying to express your concerns in this. If that isn't going to work, we shouldn't be opening up a new subject that is not addressed in the settlement agreement. If this goes to that, that was never the intent. I was trying to be -- honestly, I was simply trying to make this discussion simpler by putting some reference in here that we did discuss it at length, that we had different thoughts on it, so that if the BCC wanted to consider it and it would be highlighted to them, they could further do so. If you all think this is an opening to get into items that were not in the settlement agreement, I think that's a mistake and I think we need to back it back out then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just thought an unbiased discussion is all I was trying to get across. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff, let me ask you this: Where this became a discussion for us is when there was a version of the settlement agreement that included reducing this dimension to 100 feet. Is that something that was in -- what the commissioners were looking at originally? When they handed it off to us, was that in there? MR. KLATZKOW: I thought that was new. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It doesn't matter. Page 85 February 25, 2008 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the reason this went to you all in the first place is we added that language to the settlement agreement to clarify building separation. And when that language was added, that's when it was sent back to you. That language is out now. So I would assume had we not put that language in in the first place, we never would have found our way to the Planning Commission. Because that was the language that was added that basically sent us here. So you guys have recommended to this point take that language out, leave whatever the PUD language is. Staff says that our SDP's are consistent with the PUD. And I believe, although you may disagree with that, Mr. Schiffer, you've said that's a staff decision, let's move on with life. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I didn't get an answer to my question. Was that wording looking for a reduction in the separation between buildings in the version that the commissioners had that they sent to us? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. That wording was in that version -- MR. GRIFFIN: It was taken out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And see, Brad, if you read the dissertation here, it leads up to the conclusion that we said drop the language, take it out, leave the interpretation up to the staff and the PUD. My discussion here was not to take sides, but simply to tell the BCC our reasoning for requesting that that sentence be taken out or that reference be taken out of the settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If the answer is yes, before the commissioners' eyes that was in there before it came to us, then we have to respond to it. If it wasn't, if it's something that you put in after that and then we took out and they're not aware of it, then we don't have to respond to it, in my mind. Page 86 February 25, 2008 So if we know for sure, Jeff-- do we know? Is there a way we could see for sure? MR. KLATZKOW: Rich was in this process before I came here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then we have to answer it. We have to write a paragraph that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, they saw that language, and then we did delete it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then we've got to talk about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have a transcript of Commissioner Coyle's remarks at the November 27th meeting in which he put forward the charge that we should do at this Planning Commission. And basically there were five points that I could summarize that are in there. One is are there any disadvantages to the county contained within the settlement agreement. Two, what are the potential impacts of the settlement agreement on our Land Development Code and its interpretation. Three, what are the provisions in the settlement agreement likely to do both positive and/or negative. Four, a look at larger issues. Seems to me that those guidelines and those directions offer us the opportunity to make an expression of how we feel about these building heights, even though it wasn't out of the previous PUD. And I would certainly endorse the comments made so far that we should address that issue, since we were asked to comment on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let's do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember seeing Commissioner Coyle make his statement as well, and remember his -- what locked into my mind was that his intent was to find out Page 87 February 25, 2008 everything we could about everything we could so that they would have a better vetted document to work with and be a better conclusion. Now, as to expressing our opinions, the problem I perceive is that we may very well all have different opinions and it's difficult to express that unless we want to do a point counterpoint. My view is that this was a summary, this language that was prepared was a summary that we went through and the conclusion that was reached, whether we particularly liked it or not. And I would be just as happy leaving it the way it is. If we could find another way to make it stronger, we might be doing another two or four hours. Because I think this is what we spent most of our time on -- well, perhaps not most -- but an awful lot of time on the last time and never was able to reach a good conclusion because of the -- we were stopped by the simple statement where buildings with a common architectural theme, da, da, da, da. So that's my statement. I don't know whether it supports everybody, but that's my view. I think we ought to stay with what we have here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The intent of this statement for all of you again was simply to try to express to the BCC how we got to the last sentence which says basically remove the reference to the separation from the settlement agreement. And that was the conclusion I thought we had all come to at that point. Having that in mind, number six, does the majority of this commission feel it needs to be changed or left as it is? And I would like to propose that in a straw vote. I mean, I don't know how you call -- I guess you could call it whatever you want. Those of us that can accept it the way it is written, signify by raising your hand and saying aye. MR. MURRAY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) Page 88 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three four. Those who wish to see it changed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we discuss what we would change, Mark? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. But the point is that I think we want to keep a dissertation leading to a conclusion here. Not get in -- not necessarily get into the merits of whether or not the PUD's language is correct or incorrect. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd be happy with it if-- in the lower paragraph on the first page you get into a discussion about the accessory buildings. I would like you to strike that. That has nothing to do with the issue. So where it starts in addition and go down to, you know, the accessory structures are less than two stories in height, just kill all that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that goes down to the word however? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go down to the word do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hold on a second. Oh, okay, so from the word in addition -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the word do. You're suggesting we strike those two sentences. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that basically is a discussion about accessory structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Page 89 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't have a problem with that. Again, it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Keep them focused on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a concern with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER VICLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then that last thing is the alternate redesign of the site plan, that's nothing to do with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now where are you talking about? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Turn the page on the last this. I would recommend striking that. That's something they can discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it doesn't matter to me. Anybody have any problem striking that? COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought that was a good comment to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did, too. I thought it helped explain why we made our decision, Brad, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't remember us ever discussing that, but did we? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, well, maybe we didn't then. If we didn't want to -- it doesn't matter to me whether it's in. It's up to you guys. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Leave it in there, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One in. Donna, in or out? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it should be in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there is other alternates to the designof the site, that's what's not fair about it. Better alternates that would not cause moving the towers towards the street. Page 90 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's -- that's probably the one thing -- paragraph that Brad should write, if there are other alternatives to doing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, they could do the spacing. I mean, but anyway, in other words, I don't think we should be designing the site plan for them alternately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think it -- this wasn't an attempt to do that. It was just to suggest a solution if the BCC wanted one, that's all, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Rich I'm sure will point it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care if it's in or out. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd leave it in. COMMISSIONERMURRAY: I want it in. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I do, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat's -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're going to want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you've got everybody but yourself wanting -- I mean, I personally don't care, so you got -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine, leave it in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The commissioners want more information, not less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'll strike the two sentences on the reference in the accessory facilities, and then I'll move on to paragraph -- then paragraph seven. This is the one about submerged lands. That's been taken out. Paragraph eight talks about the single-family homes and how we had to add standards for those. And paragraph nine is the standards needed to -- because accessory structures had to be addressed. And that's the major bullet points that I had thought were -- Page 91 February 25, 2008 needed to be highlighted, in addition to all the strike-throughs and changes we're going to be recommending to the BCC. Is everybody sufficiently comfortable with that at this point? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, if I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- keeping it in context with what Mr. Schiffer said. The board never saw the submerged land paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They didn't? MR. YOVANOVICH: That became an issue after the BCC delivery to you all, if my memory's correct. That came up after it was sent to you all and someone raised the issue of doing the recalculation. So I don't know if you want to put -- that may just confuse the issue on that paragraph, since it was never raised to the BCC through a version of the settlement agreement that they've seen. I just bring that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: It wasn't raised in the settlement agreement itself until -- and I don't know who it was asked that it be put there. However, there was long discussion about it at the BCC during that public hearing. So I think the commissioners are well aware of it and I think leaving it in there is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Just when they go to compare, what did they originally see versus the strike-through and underlined you deliver. They're going to say why is this struck through on the later version when we never saw it on the earlier version. That's the only reason I bring that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet you could explain it away too, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd be happy to. I'll try to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have something you wanted to follow up on? Page 92 GoodnerAngela Subject: Mark Strain Location: Collier County Commission Office, 3299 Tamiami Trail E, Bldg F#303 Start: Fri 3/24/2017 11:00 AM End: Fri 3/24/2017 11:30 AM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndrew Required Attendees: Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com) Diane Rupnow's email, Cocohatchee Bay PUD 1 GoodnerAngela Subject: Judy Pellay and Diane Rupnow Location: County Commission Office, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples Start: Fri 2/24/2017 1:00 PM End: Fri 2/24/2017 1:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndrew Required Attendees: Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com) Categories: Commission Chambers Kalea Bay 1 Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Updates On June 17, 201 5, Lodge Abbott extended his 2004 golf course permit and clear cut two large sections of land in the fall. I called Matt McLean's office in September and November and asked that the site be inspected for any violations of the permit. Both times his office responded that all clearing was allowed by the permit. On April 16, 2016 I sent an email to County Commissioners, county attorney, county manager, county planning commissioners, Daryl Hughes and Matt McClean informing them that the golf course permit that the developer extended was a sham. There is no mention of a golf course in the amenities section of the Kalea Bay website and a Kalea Bay sales agent told me three times that they had no plans to build a golf course. In 2016 nearly the whole interior of the Golf Course parcel was cleared under the guise of building a Golf Course. It defies logic that the developer is truly building a golf course. . What savvy developer would build a new golf course in Collier County when many golf courses are struggling to make a profit? What developer wanting to sell $1 .5 million condos would not feature photos and information about the golf course he's building right across the road in the amenities section of his website. What developer building a golf course would instruct his sales agents to tell potential buyers that he isn't building a golf course? What developer building condo towers AND a golf course across the road would not be selling golf course memberships? The most recent golf course plans submitted to the County show 18 holes of golf crammed on the GC parcel. The plan does NOT show an entrance, clubhouse, parking lot, golf cart barn, driving range or practice green. In fact, the plan shows a driving range and practice green on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive where a maintenance building, guest suites and tennis courts are already built. We can't put back the centuries old cypress trees that have been cut down or restore the wetlands, but we can insist that the use of the land be limited to golf course or leave it alone to grow back. Several Collier County golf courses not able to make a profit requested that they be allowed to change their zoning to residential. County Commissioners put a moratorium on those requests on April 12, 2016. County staff were directed to draft an amendment to facilitate golf course conversion to other uses. Right now the language of that amendment is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. We theorize the developer is going ahead and clearing the land getting it ready for residential development so that when the new LDC amendment is in place, he will use it to change zoning from golf course to residential. We ask that the Golf Course Conversion Amendment apply only to golf courses that were fully constructed and in business prior to April 12, 2016. We also ask County Commissioners and staff to enforce terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement. Please refer to "Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement Analysis" to view specific concerns. The intent of the Settlement Agreement can be clarified by reading the transcript of the December 12, 2006 meeting among County Commissioners, Rich Yovanovich, concerned citizens and the developer. Please read pages 46--66 of the January 11 , 2008 Planning Commissioners meeting to clarify the issues brought to the county in the letter from our attorney, Ralf Brookes. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 , \ hsst!Wa i- .41 dza9rga; 1" 32 a4 gC .w yr �o y v 44 £��` �� ; 3 � � gN��iw; ,,,, t� ;51 igE! 4§ �p�+"^�p };fix+, S Y �a�,3Re£zg.E e. ZS z 4U £'C 'oii" o C R ��_^ id 4i1:S� 4y „11 a l k �-gle.z3 .4.1w % .,.,,s: .„,�V OQW. „. 0$8'A. a i,4^ R.:e Ci4WC QQN H. ...itf. f • fi; � r g O'".P. CI... . I _,.., , . ., 1:6 • Y 14 , -igi • ILLikt• .? " 1 F • s ff • f, �� ; 3 7 elle r• ' • • • - 'F ' ••aa • ai , O z -.-, 'J--I , i a ., :,,,, 41 1 , a • •aa • }j .°14.ir..).—eil3M Z:::t..:`e:Z;:.,,=Z;_„-:kk.S.-i:S j�; ' ♦ • 4,0,,:.:, ,tom„„.,„i,„,,,,A,i,se,,,,t,,„,: A0 -:4_-, - 1 1 1 .,;,";,i:.', ?' �:. • ,...,..',„\..1A..„,_1,.,,, ..‹M11 ' 2*t I 4 ... -‘ - ' 1 goy... t .. ..6 im __ .... „ _ : •_..,... z , ,.... ::::, , tS In ____. __� vl Q) .--,,,-----.-.t.-.-_-_ -- R =,,.Y— �.: _ _--------- ---- (, S►.,,, -'— - -- J --__0/588-S VS) 31011.1 17182130NYA 43-r.. __ , sn ..-d * i i i W v..........E 041 E si 0. li U 4� 2 410111111-* -414111r- .\,• • hi ' \T# •;. '•'C a ' • • .t .•a • 4 •a •♦ •a 4 4 ♦ • a ,1 a . Gmail FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE: Questions/Cocohatchee Bay- Kalea Bay (1d �O `p ars f 1a_fl 2/22/17,11:57 AM i r I 15 � . . 1 _ .Il 4 , GLOM FON, 1-6;..R__,.....--' __�1 i r A!t1tMTRFi.0 tT tt _. _....__..-: .- - { „.,its I AW. r..tk.+ .'T3' •'� y .1:3 ,-.7;::- `' ` Fx..... , ` , x t ` s k...,... ,-'..._,..c�r ,, t`F, f .�.....'""'"... "" , �.�a lj�. �� I`L'l� , . j,-/ ; ""..."'"'"""..."""t'''' .r.n ems: N.S. t Cy .A.w ! 1 i �/�.' wrtMr ,... _ .-1.. ...n...,.......,..a.„�.... • ':�;ii.rnMcnrswn 4i1 ' tfff 1 ea..wMwf[nrr�. f` .?1721 1 4, .f' ;'•,' '-�' �. )/ I'1 •: j ' (--1 uotswunn.anrc. 1 . a ; - _ 11,114310 �. -- / 1 > a r nG.IDtTt>•o.,Mi}..,RM.11.M1M 1:•:.:::•:-.-',..-:`,.,,'•...:-:-..- � --Fens '>` y 1 - `r(' -. � - , a� , �oLw..,maedietu.R.s.moteuxo..F.r.M.a.. '.>. s ." } ( 171.../ _ J / .1 i.i ' F m Mnrm'MINI n. �, 1 - n.OFtWIYtCMD..f ' moareSPAS, 15:/e"". -e. r. ! � MOM E , I J C1..TFR,OMR,01etna.Ui1@.6 4. von14.1.40 ~t _ ...�... ,,.. . F Awa i ' = Y INKGNS PASS ROAD \ .:.�.�.e -. -�: wGC.+rf r.aSnWD,tM'RRi____*AVIS le t�16�w'(' ,-- tT i N /GE IOTES IMMIX MiM WtROA1(f i !�__.�S ..........; 'I� F ;; -._._.7 ,1 -^`,"""y`` -.v. ` -1-110 7 } oill + ? � S: � /� 1 GGrMFLM POW \-- Wa fr fryEckCO*AM LW YACNTttliM !-r .I. MMrMMM61.YRr f g,-- , , t et ste ow e i - ' 1 "`-7 DRAINAGE BASIN MAP = ("� /. //} M -. "'-'"'ae GOLF COURSE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS ».,.... _ __. -.. Cocobatcbe P.U.D. RML*solun - NI'EMAN/=ARNO PLAN e. _» y - ..u... •1 _ _ +a..,-.----i-' 4 .,..�.......- t... a••. SIGNATURE COMMUNITIES,INC. Christopher 0.Scott,AICP,LEED-AP Planning Manager-Development Review 239.252.2460 From:Diane Rupnow[maitto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Wednesday,February 08,2017 5:42 PM To:ScavoneMichelle Cc:McLeanMatthew;ScottChris;BosiMichael;LevyMichael;DeaneConnie;BlevinsCaroline;McKennaJack;WilkisonDavid;French]ames Subject:Re:FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay [Quoted text hidden] https://maiLgoogle.cam/mail)?ui=2&ik=515654168x&view=pt&q=scay...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=15a1fe3c8190b615&sim1=15a232603fc3a208 Page 5 of 5 • * }c� ; rte 0 f It iay s<i } 44 * m } a ^�_•` Lpia } £ aA4? a 4R ap d { :•e1 + a s4 }' . a f f # . ; 18 :,..,,,,,,,.01„,,,,- t , -, it }K £ cet .,.......de.,.......) „}:w .s ., a "4 } w """s. . . ...;s ` f9 4 ` •fte.-i./ as- ' 4,°'+ . ti. • • ; k I '' '''' / ��""ff 0 4.04 Vic /40. ,*, . i. r e ,s aro.a&elWilimiliesuMPIMINP *.. . 00 TAP D 1.�tt M jai ■IrtJ tt .. ._. .rte .�..� .,.... ....,. �... i lj ,.✓"°}""''tet... - v i i .- # t e+. N i 064 /fir , , I1jY #sl *f 4 a i - is r I : . . :, .: t j / •:, , i 4. . t. {-tet l I Y * o f�M, f,r • +« lf • \ ♦ j f Z 'ra fjr\` \ y t'} 'f 1 j • , t 111 , 4.44 i a t f N fr" a 7 t 4 { K k 5'} L 4 ;fin# * i ` . � . 4 * • }f 44 - •i } a } r 4j4 r„ _ I s • t( i t ta•• ♦ , / a 4 I' 4 a fr .� } r. . r of a^i= ,. . ay} P )onrir1 Conynis ,n Me-c4-4 January 11, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think it's a good point to bring up, because it brought up a lot of discussion we needed to have about habitable. And Mr. Yovanovich has even provided a new definition of habitable, at some point we have to look at today. Although it turns out there are definitions in some of our codes, twice, two instances in fact, and they're in the code of laws. And by the way, like you just said, the applicant is in line with what those definitions fit. Let's go back to 10 first and see if there's anything that we need to discuss in paragraph 10 that we don't feel we finished last time or that's subject to the underlined and crossed out sections of the paragraph we have in front of us today based on the county attorney's draft language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, we were submitted a new development standard for the multi-family high-rise buildings. It actually says -- I guess R-1 is the zone on it. Could we put that up on the monitor? This is something that was submitted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got the SDP -- he's got the table from the SDP, not the development standard table, but the standard that was supplied in the SDP package. It was a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And my conversation is going to be on setbacks. There is one concern I have in that the setbacks for roads I wanted to review. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, you'll tell me if this is the right document, please. Is that the right one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it is. Rich, see the line, it's the third one down, the front yard distance from the internal road. It says ifs going to be 50 percent of the building height, which we know in our case is 100 feet. The buildings are 200 feet tall. Building two, three, four have a distance less than that. Is that a Page 46 January 11, 2008 problem? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, could you repeat your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you look at the standards, the front yard internal road setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is for the R-1 standards table? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, multi-family. You'll see that the requirement is for 100 feet, and some of those are -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, the explanation is, is that is measured to the garage, not the high-rise portion of the building, okay? So that's where those distances are equal to the garage. And as you know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The garage isn't that tall. So there isn't a problem. Second thing, put up -- you sent us a drawing that shows the site lines. And if you could focus in on the plan that's on the upper left side. It's a site plan called key map. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that the one you're referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, blow up the plan in the lower right. And the reason I'm looking at that is that does -- upper left, I'm sorry. It's called key map. If you could make that the full screen, that would be best. Maybe a little less screen. And my concern is that, we discussed this last time, is the setbacks. The setbacks in the development standards are to be one-half the combined height of the units. Well, I like the one with the black, that's why I was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You like the black one better? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it points out my concern. And my concern is that the setbacks in the development plan call for 200-foot setback. The buildings are all 200 foot in height. Added together, you get 400 feet. Divide it by two you get 200 feet. And these setbacks are a lot closer. Page 47 January 11, 2008 You're requesting us to allow to bring it down to 100 feet. And the concern is this is going to be just one wall of buildings as you go up Vanderbilt Drive. Now, I know where you're coming from, you're going to say well, we twisted the buildings. We have -- first of all, I don't think the site plan would show the buildings parallel -- the walls parallel met the setback to begin with. So all along through this whole process the setbacks were never -- between buildings, distance between buildings were never being met. What you actually did in the current design is you kind of rotated them a little bit and, you know, even -- again I go back to this October 9th letter from PMS, Inc. and it says that, you know, that the buildings didn't meet it. They were stating that in their -- and she states, however, the buildings have been slightly rotated to ensure compliance with the development standards. So the concern I have is that I don't think the development standards -- I think the development standard is intended for the setbacks as described in the chart, in the table, which would essentially produce a square of open space between the units. What you're asking for is to allow that to be brought down to half that dimension, or essentially half a square between them, which will give these things the appearance of a wall when you look at it from different vistas on Vanderbilt. So you're requesting that in here. So why are you requesting that, to make the site plan buildable or a desire or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: To make it buildable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in the original layout it did not meet the standards shown? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I -- before Richard answers, could you show me what part of the settlement agreement you're referring to that they're asking for that's different than what they already received in the PUD? Page 48 January 11, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In 10, the minimum separation of the habitable portion of the building shall be one-half the sum of the height of the habitable portion of the building, not to exceed 100 foot of separation for the habitable portion of the building. First of all, putting in there the one-half of the height again is just -- that's a teaser, because you know you can't make that. So the concern is that -- the problem is that the neighbors, I think, and I wasn't on the board then, I don't know what testimony was. But the intention was is to have these buildings spaced apart by pushing them up against each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still trying to get to -- I'm trying to understand where you're going. I'm sure Richard could answer it, but it may not help me try to figure out where you're going. If that's possible, I'd like to. I think the sentence you're referring to should have been changed, if I remember correctly from our last discussion where it begins on Page 7, buildings shall be one-half the sum of the height of the habitable portion of the buildings and shall be a minimum of 100 feet of separation for the habitable portion of the buildings. And if I recall correctly, it was never not to exceed 100 feet. That would be ridiculous. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I'm reading that -- one of the other comments I had further, Mark, is that the way it's written, it's actually locking it to be less than 100 feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you about put that in, does that fix your problem? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I think that if the project was sold to have a 200-foot separation between buildings, it should not have a 100-foot separation between buildings. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, it was never sold that way. The commission saw -- at that time saw the entire PUD document. And in that PUD document it provided for a mechanism to reduce the Page 49 January 11, 2008 separation of structures. And it said there had to be a common architectural theme and the buildings need to be skewed and basically not parallel. So the commission saw this. We provided an exhibit when we did the neighborhood meetings. Yet if you look at the exhibit, you could see that the structures were not 200 feet apart, we were only going about -- did we have a line on there that says the distance between buildings? No. But if you looked at the scale that was on that drawing, you would see that these buildings were not 200 feet apart. So I don't think we ever sold this as they were going to be 200 feet apart, else we wouldn't have had the common architectural language in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the common architectural language, let's make that simple. You're building the exact identical building. We could discuss whether that's good or bad. I personally wonder. So it's obviously common, they're twins. Everything, everybody is going to look alike, according to your SDP. MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, they're quintuplets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they're quintuplets. So we don't have to worry about them being a common architectural theme, they're identical. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've covered that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the concern is though -- but I think there's a clause in there that I know you're hanging on, and that is that if you do skew the buildings or twist them, then you can move -- the buildings can have less than the dimensions shown. Now, I think what that means from a planner, and Susan's our chief planner, that you have a spacing required. Yes, you can twist them a little bit, and if that does cause that dimension to be less, that's not a problem. I don't think it means no setbacks or no separation once you twist them. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're not trying for no separation. Page 50 January 11, 2008 We're just trying to implement the provision in the code -- I'm sorry, the PUD, that already says if you do these things we can minimize, reduce the building separation. I provided some language in an e-mail that says it has to be a minimum of 100 feet for the habitable tower portion of the structure, the parking garages will still meet their one-half the sum of the building height. We don't think under this site plan, frankly, that it's going to look like a wall of buildings. We think that it's going to look very nice. I mean, frankly, they're angled all the way up. The only issue that you were raising is there were two buildings that arguably were not skewed and they were parallel. So we wanted to make it clear, we didn't want to get into an argument down the road, you know, parallel means one thing in geometry. And I think I told you the last time I was here I wasn't very good at geometry. But once you skew it one degree, you're no longer parallel. And we just wanted to say, listen, you're going to end up with buildings that are a minimum 100 feet apart on the towers. We think from a view corridor coming down Vanderbilt Road with the landscaping buffer that we provided you, this is going to look fine, it's going to look nice, it implements the existing PUD, and it wasn't a change to the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But back to what you said earlier, Richard, I think much like -- remember when.I wanted you to look at this drawing, you wanted us to look at the other drawing, you can't see the building masses on those other drawings? I think most people would not notice the distance. Obviously I had to take out a scale to see what the distance was on the submitted PUD to find out what they are. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here in a little bit. So if we could get to some point you feel we can break, Page 51 January 11, 2008 Brad -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he walked away, Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I know that. No, I'm just suggesting if you at some point -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can take a break any time you want. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I was just answering my client's question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Anyway, my concern is that we put a chart in the table, that's really what prevails. And the exhibit, you know, there's a lot of caveats on it stating that it's subject to change and all the other things. So I think anybody relying on that data would be relying on the table. I think what the table means, and we can get some testimony from staff, that there's a massing expected. In this case everybody expected a square of open space between these buildings that, yes, if you rotated them or did something like that, of course the corners might swing in less to that dimension. So in other words, if ifs 190, 180 feet once you rotate them -- let me wait till the side bar is over. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, we could debate this point probably all day. The PUD says what the PUD says. There's a footnote that specifically allows for the buildings to get closer together if you meet the criteria of the PUD. We're not asking for any changes of the PUD document related to building separation. What we simply are trying to do is make it less ambiguous for both staff and us and for the general public to understand what the separation will be. And what we're saying is it will be a minimum separation for that livable portion of the building of 100 feet. I wasn't prepared and didn't think we were going to debate the original PUD document. It was adopted, we're implementing it. We're.. trying to make it clear. Had they not wanted -- if there had been an Page 52 January 11, 2008 intent that you would never be able to reduce the building separation, there wouldn't have been that footnote. And candidly, there wouldn't be a provision in the Land Development Code itself that allows for common architectural theme to result in the reduction of building separation from the minimum standards. It would have said thou shalt never be closer than 200 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here. And we'll come back at 10:15. Mr. Vigliotti and Ms. Caron both have questions at some point in this issue. So when we get back, Brad can finish with his. We'll get into Mr. Vigliotti's and Ms. Caron and we'll go from there. 10:15 we'll return. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, we'll resume the meeting where we had left off. And Mr. Schiffer was working on some questions concerning the last two sentences on -- starts on Page 6 and on Page 7 of the settlement agreement. After he finishes, Mr. Vigliotti was next, and then Ms. Caron. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess, Rich, just to go back. One thing, you mentioned that in the LDC there's a section of code that says if you have a common architectural theme -- and again, this county, one of its problem is it makes everything look the same, but we'll assume that's good, that's a given -- that if you rotate it you can reduce the separation between buildings. Is that -- I don't think that's in the LDC. There is something similar to that about clustering but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and that's under -- the common architectural theme talks about clustering. You go through a conditional use process. We went through a public hearing PUD process, so there was a public hearing process that occurs. And I don't believe -- and I could be wrong, I don't believe there Page 53 January 11, 2008 is any requirement for either skewing or rotating the buildings to meet the definition of common architectural theme for clustering. So instead of what you see on the visualizer where you have the buildings angled away from Vanderbilt Road, you could probably line them all up on Vanderbilt Road and really create the wall that you're fearful we'll be creating. Now, I think you have to look at all of this together. We have landscape requirements that we've provided for you. And this is actually the sight line study that shows you, as you're driving down or walking down Vanderbilt Drive, you're not going to see the buildings. So if you're not going to see the buildings, what's the impact on this necessary space between the buildings? Now, from a distance, I don't care where you are, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet, if you're a half a mile away, the buildings are going to look close together, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet. So I think if you look at what we're doing, we are meeting the requirements in the existing PUD; we are further away from Vanderbilt Drive than the minimum required; we have met the skewing and the common architectural theme. We're not asking to change the PUD, we're just asking to make it clear that the minimum distance has to be 100 feet. Because frankly, probably under the PUD we can get even closer, which I believe was one of your concerns when we talked the last time. I believe you asked me, Rich, can't you guys theoretically get within a couple of feet of each building. And we've said no. And we've answered that by saying the towers have got to at least be 100 feet from each other. So we thought we had addressed a lot of the concerns while staying consistent with the existing adopted PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess maybe, Mark, if it would be okay, let me have.Susan come down. Because the way that clause really reads is if that if you meet certain conditions it can be Page 54 January 11, 2008 administratively reviewed. Again, you know my opinion is that the intent of something like that from a planning concept, not from just looking at words and playing Philadelphia lawyer, from a planning concept, that means that if a building rotates, that would tend to close dimensions, and the dimensions would swing in. And if you do that, you won't be penalized because of the fact that you've skewed the building. But let me askSusw because she's the one that would be \ making that judgment. Or Ross might be. Richard, let Ross -- ‘;k‘ MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought he was going to sit over there. \k1/4,f_t MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, zoning and land development review. Susan's asked me to address this issue for you. The way we understand the PUD is -- well, the basic question is, is the reduction in setbacks or separation of structures limited by the PUD document? And the answer is no, the separation is unlimited. I can't see any grounds in there for intent to reduce it a certain amount, or it would have been specified. So the question I ask myself is does the applicant have the right to do what he did? And the answer was yes. There simply is nothing that limits the amount of reduction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Ross, you think what that meant -- here's what I think it meant. I think it meant that if you have two buildings, you have a separation, in this case a square, that if those buildings rotate, they close in on each other a little bit. And that's what that means, that essentially the scale of the project -- remember, I'm talking purely in the planning concept of buildings and mass -- that the scale of the project stays the same but the dimensions do close slightly when you rotate them. So when you're telling me that clause meant -- and,this was what was given to the public as a development standard, that if you slightly , skew your buildings, which is what they've done, you have no side Page 55 January 11, 2008 setback requirement,anyziore? h4 MR. GOCHENAUR: Basically that's correct. . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Really? !, MR. GOCHENAUR: Correct. Now, as far as the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From a planning concept you really feel -- MR. GOCHENAUR: As far as the intent. When the PUD was approved, I don't think we're going to find anything that explained the intent as far as a possible reduction in the amount or the distance. I think it was unlimited. It's unlimited here. I don't see where we have the right to tell the applicant that there's a limit to which he can reduce that separation. It's simply not stated in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the point. And this will be the last time. I don't want to be redundant. But I think as planners, not as reading little words and, you know, reading between lines, is that when you describe through the table the separation of these buildings to have essentially a square of space between them, that if you rotate those buildings a little bit, that square can open or close a little bit. You're saying that they essentially tricked us then by giving us a table, giving us a setback, knowing all the time that they're never going hit that description, they're never going to hit that dimension. MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, I'm not suggesting anyone was tricked. But I am saying that the board approved the setbacks as they appear in this table. And that reading these, without full knowledge of the intent or any real intimate knowledge of the PUD rezone itself, I have to say that this is the way I feel constrained to apply it. And I don't think Susan disagrees with that, which is why she asked me to explain this to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So as the one who made the administrative decision that if a building in this case was slightly skewed, that eliminated the requirement for building separation? Page 56 January 11, 2008 MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, that's my understanding of this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At our last meeting we discussed this particular point in depth. I believe almost everybody weighed in at different points, we spent a lot of time on it. What I had said is I'm not happy about it, I don't like it, but it's in the PUD. We're not here to change the PUD, nor can we. I just think it's something we have to live with and move on. And I believe it was the consensus of most of us, as I said, that it is the way it and we have to live with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a comment and then I've got a comment. Ms. Caron, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and it will be a comment at this point -- well, actually, I'll ask a question first to the county attorney. Do you agree that staff has no authority to make a judgment on the separation of these buildings? MR. KLATZKOW: I think -- just for visually, because I'm more of a visual person, if your buildings were like this and you required 200 feet, okay, and then they said you can make it slightly askew and thereby build them like this, I think that's an absurd interpretation. I think what the -- I think the way it reads is that there's discretion here -- and that includes this board as well because you're making recommendations to the board here, that if they're going to make this slightly skewed, that yes, they can reduce this, that's appropriate. The question is how much of a reduction is appropriate. And that's my view on that. Now, the planning director disagrees with that, and that's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you for that. Because Page 57 January 11, 2008 I think this is a critically important discussion to be having because this is not going to affect just this project. This will affect projects coming down the road. And if we suddenly decide that we have no authority -- no planning authority to decide whether 250 -- what in reality will be 251-foot plus buildings could essentially be five feet apart, the absurdity of that judgment is just beyond me. If this board thinks that 100 feet, when it should be 200 feet, is the correct way to go, then you'll make that decision. But I agree with Mr. Schiffer, that we're going to end up with essentially a wall of buildings 100 -- you know, barely 100 feet apart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had a comment I wanted to make. And I saw this sentence telling us that the applicant had agreed that the buildings would never be less than 100 feet apart. I don't know why the applicant wanted to do that, because basically the PUD stands on itself and they probably have a very good case on that footnote if they wanted to make one, regardless. So I'm wondering, to get off this point, because we're only discussing it because of these two sentences in the PUD that now with staffs testimony here today and the clarifications that have come out of discussion today by staff, why do you need these two sentences? You still got the PUD that dominates, and we're off the discussion and we go on to the rest of the paragraphs. So I'm asking the applicant, originally I saw a version of this document with those two sentences struck, because apparently someone at one time felt the PUD stood on its own. I understand your position in trying to voluntarily minimize the distance in which they could be put at, but it looks like that's causing a lot more controversy than the effort may have been worth. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will tell you, we think the benefit of that sentence is both to us and to the county so when there's personnel changes over time, there always are, or different people sitting in your seats, people could interpret the document differently. And we would Page 58 January 11, 2008 like that certainty because, candidly, we need to know that this site development plan , rove will be approved, or something similar to it if pp , changes happen will be approved in the future and not be subject to a debate over words in the future. And we thought -- I think staff would prefer to have the clarification so we all know it won't be less than 100 feet. We would like that in the document to provide certainty to us so -- and reasonable minds can disagree about what things mean, and we're just trying to make sure that this is clear that we have certainty in the future. And that's why we've asked to keep that in. I know it's an uncomfortable conversation we're having, but that's why it's in, and we think that it's beneficial to both sides to have that language in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the language only states a minimum. To get to that minimum, you still need to bring in the common architectural theme issue. So the language doesn't clear up any of the debate about that issue. It simply says you have a minimum of 100 feet that you can get to but you still got to fall back on what the debate has been to get there. So I'm not sure why the sentence helps you, but if you want to leave it in, then we will go forward. I just suggested, since I had seen it struck in the prior version, the first version that was sent to this committee back last year didn't have -- had that struck through as being omitted. Then it was put back in when you all realized it was coming to us, for some reason. But that's fine. It seemed simpler without it. We're on paragraph 10 -- Brad, did you have another question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My comment was, based on Ross's testimony, just take it out. Because we're ultimately going to vote on this thing. I certainly could -- I don't know how we're going to vote, if we vote by number, line item veto kind of thing maybe. But if we vote on this thing as a whole, I would never support that. Page 59 January 11, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're voting on it. I think we're simply making recommendations and we can all, on each recommendation, say we support it or don't support it. We're here to tell -- I thought we were here to describe to the BCC what the settlement agreement means in interpretation of the PUD that they formerly had, the differences. If some of us see this as a different interpretation than what the PUD meant, then that could be our recommendation. Others of us may not see that as a different interpretation. You're focusing on your dislike of a footnote in the PUD, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's a different interpretation. That's all I'm getting at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Make it clear, I'm focusing on the geometry of the construction of this project. Let me ask Ross one quick question before we jump away. Ross, this is in for SDP, the setbacks are shown. I saw some correspondence where you didn't accept the setbacks because the buildings were parallel but then they slightly skewed them and therefore triggering that footnote. And you've given us your interpretation of that. Have you signed off on the setbacks of this SDP already? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. They're revising the setbacks not for the high-rises but principally for the clubhouse and the single-family homes. For the high-rises, I've accepted the resubmittal that revised the setbacks and skewed the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially Richard is concerned about the future generations, you've signed it off, it's a done deal. This clause doesn't mean anything in this agreement anyway, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Let's keep in mind that this is almost like a package..The settlement agreement and the site development plan are Page 60 January 11, 2008 all going to the board at the same time. And, you know, defining what the setback is in the settlement agreement doesn't -- I don't know really where it gets us anyway, since the site development plan is going to have the setbacks anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the applicant wants to leave it in. We can recommend to take the two sentences out and that can be done with it, but -- MR YOVANOVICH: The concern is not about the present. But if we go in the future and we determine that we need to make a modification to the site development plan and we move the buildings a foot one way or the other, we don't want to get into a debate again on this issue. We want it to be understood and clear that we can go ahead and reduce the setbacks between the buildings. We don't want -- we don't want to be stuck with, Mr. Yovanovich, you moved it a foot. We think this new group doesn't agree that you're allowed to put buildings closer together. That's why this provision is in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW, Then I'm going to want some clarity. Because my understanding was that we were going to have a final site development plan and that's how this development was going to get 'built. I'm hearing now that well, maybe we're going to make changes after all this is over to that site development plan. So that what ultimately gets built is not what ultimately is going to go before this board. And I don't -- it's okay by me if it's okay with this board, but. that's what we're saying here right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that this settlement agreement is based upon the approval of the three SDPs. Once they're approved, they're done. Are you going to tell us that there's going to be more,.-- well, they'd be outside the settlement agreement then, would they not? MR. YOVANOVICH: They would be outside the settlement agreement. What we're looking for is clarification of what does the Page 61 _ _ January 11, 2008 PUD document mean in this settlement agreement. So if there is a change, people will say, Mr. Yovanovich, you're right, the buildings can be, as long as they meet the common architectural theme. The buildings are not parallel, they are skewed, you can be closer together but not less than 100 feet apart on the residential tower and the parking garages, some of the building height. So when we go in the future, we know we're allowed to do that. No maze, no language of, you know, what is this distance of, you know, what is -- how much skewing do you need to do to meet e intent of this. We want to know that if there is a change, that's how the PUD document will be interpreted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I myself, I thought the PUD language stood on its own. Your bringing it into this document is causing concerns with this panel. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm listening to the public discussion about it and there are people who are less certain that it stands onits h own and it's clear. And that's why we're trying to make it clear through the settlement agreement, so in the future we don't have a changing of minds as to what is clear in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments on paragraph 10? If not, we have to figure out how to resolve this paragraph and what kind of recommendation as far as the language goes we need to provide to the county attorney to include in the next draft that is produced. Any comments from the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, what I would prefer we do is remove this language, because -- and let it be something that the administrative staff take care of. If Richard is concerned about a future planner viewing it the way I would view it -- and remember, I have a degree in architecture and planning -- then that's a good concern. Page 62 January 11, 2008 But the point is I would never want it to look like this board endorsed this kind of interpretation of the setback. I don't think it's right, and I think it should just be struck. It should not be a problem. Quick, get your administrative stuff in there. And Ross is today's professional and he says that you can do what you want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tend to agree with you in the sense that I don't think the PUD needs any more clarification. I think you can manage yourself under the PUD. That's what you accepted. I don't see the need for these two sentences. I'd just as soon they were gone as well. I just don't see the need for them. I understand your concern, Richard, but you're a capable attorney and I'm sure you could argue whatever rights you had aren't going to go away whether these two sentences are there or not. Any other comments from anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to say one more thing. Is that when we get PUDs we get a development standard table, which everybody says that's the genetic code of the project. And then we get a drawing that everybody says can be fluctuated quite a bit. The standard really gave everybody the impression of the separation of these buildings. To do what we're doing now I think is a big mistake, the way it's being interpreted. Enough said. I mean, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, when I read a development standards table, and you know I read them all because every single meeting I harp on the footnotes. I read this one. I wasn't here when that one was approved, that was way before my time. But had it been here, I would have known what it meant, I would have known exactly what it meant and what the footnotes mean, because I realize they're critical, they're that important to what this committee approves.didn't know So I don't know if when this went through people what they mean or didn't read it. I sure would have known what it Page 63 January 11, 2008 meant and would have read it, so I'm assuming the other bodies on this board would have done the same thing. So I'm not in your camp in that regard, but I do believe that these two sentences are not needed, and my recommendation would be that they just be struck and not included as part of this settlement agreement. Is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I really agree with that. Do you need a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we need a motion, Mr. Klatzkow, or just consensus? MR. KLATZKOW: At the end I'm going to ask you to go through this so we have certainty as to what these changes are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let's just get a consensus. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, don't you feel that the Board of County Commissioners wanted our opinion on such a thing on whether it's a reasonable distance between structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wanted our opinion on how the settlement agreement differed than the PUD, how it changed the effect of the PUD. That's what they specifically said on the tape that we reviewed. If they wanted our opinion on all the aspects of this project, we could do that. But we would need about a month at the rate we're going and every day of the week to review it. I don't think they wanted that, nor would they be able to read that if we sent it to them. So we need to stick to the focus. Look at the settlement agreement, look at the issues in the settlement agreement and describe to the BCC how they vary from the PUD language that's already been approved or suggest remedies to that effect. And that's what I think we need to be focusing on. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But shouldn't we see what the consensus is as far as this board is concerned relative to the separation somewhere along the line, whether it's now or done at the end of the Page 64 January 11, 2008 hearings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think this is a popularity vote on the PUD's application. If it is, then that's -- we can do that, but I'm not going to take part in it because I don't think that was part of the direction this board was given. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I wasn't talking about a popularity report, I was talking about something that's whether it's good planning or bad planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that differs too amongst the people and the experience they have on this board -- or experience in that field. And I'm not sure everybody has the expertise to opine on what's good and bad planning from a perspective we'd be looking at this. Because we certainly haven't gone in, analyzed the PUD in regards to the presentations at the time and weighed in on the way this is utilized in other parts of either this county or the parts of Florida. So those are areas I don't see where this board had the --needs to get into. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Frankly, I prefer the language out. The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of .t. the day.f they want to chap e it and make these setbacks clos�x t will do so at their own risk,It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going ask for a -- I'm going to go down the line as far as recommending removal of this language. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself, yes. Page 65 January 11, 2008 Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIOLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will be the recommendation on paragraph 10. We now can move on to paragraph 11. Paragraph 11 didn't have any -- had a small change, and changed the word shall to may. Although I think there's a couple of changes in the last sentence that we just evolved out of the discussion we had on single-family where it says 1,200 square feet, it says each single-family dwelling unit shall be set back a minimum of 200 feet from the north and east boundaries. That should read, all structures shall be set back a minimum of 200 feet from all boundaries of the PUD project. MR. YOVANOVICH: And maybe it could even be simpler, is that I believe we provided you a development standards table for the single-family homes. Perhaps we could just refer to it as an exhibit instead of-- we would just say the single-family standards shall be as depicted in exhibit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, because we're not dealing with the issue of just single-family in regards to that portion of the sentence. We're dealing with setbacks from all PUD boundaries to be 200 feet. Which goes back to your fence discussion that we went in length and you got a comfort level that a fence was not an accessory structure. Basically, what we'd be saying is all structures would have to have at least a 200-foot setback from PUD boundaries, not just single-family as you're suggesting now in a single-family developments standards table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. Page 66 DIMENSIONS OF KALEA BAY TOWERS Paragraph 2 in the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement states, "This agreement and release expressly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control." Details of how the PUD would be developed were in 3 SDP's. In 2007, the Commissioners directed the Planning Commission to review the proposed Settlement Agreement in context of the PUD as well as the existing Land Development Code regulations. Details of discussions the Planning Commission had with Rich Yovanovich regarding all aspects of the PUD can be read in a transcript of their January 11 , 2008 Planning Commission meeting. WIDTH of TOWERS: There is no mention of width of towers in the Settlement Agreement. On original SDP the tower width is listed at 260'. Actual width of Tower 1 is 310' If each of the 5 towers is 50' wider than the 260' listed in the SDP, fifty times fives equates to almost an additional tower on site. HEIGHT of TOWERS: See AMENDED COCOHATCHEE BAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "R" DISTRICT TABLE II (in Settlement Agreement). In the Settlement Agreement, it states that the maximum height of towers is 200' of habitable space. Tower 1 exceeds 200 ft. in height because it has 2 levels of garage at its base and a pool and fitness center on the roof. It should be noted that "habitable space" actually begins on the upper level of the garage where the building manager's home is located. Since it contains a bathroom and kitchen, that is habitable space. SDPA PL20160002242 currently under review by County staff shows the highest point of Buildings 2-4 will be 224' 11 " with the uppermost finished ceiling being 199' 0"just under the 200' maximum. Paragraph 10 in the Settlement Agreement states, "Building Five as shown on the Revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B on the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in Building Height, as defined in Paragraph 3.5 entitled "Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the amended PUD, and Footnote 2 thereto. SDPA PL20160002242 currently under review by County staff shows the highest point of Building 5 will be 301 ' 1 1/4" with the uppermost finished ceiling height 276' 2 1/4" which would CLEARLY be a violation of the Settlement Agreement. HOWEVER, Brad Schiffer (former Collier Planning Commissioner and current head architect for the state of Florida) explained to me that on this chart I have to focus on the bottom of the chart where they show the elevation of the 3rd story floor (1st habitable level) to be at 100' instead of 0' as it did in the diagram for Buildings 2-4. So, that makes the uppermost finished ceiling of Building 5 to be 176 2 %" -still more than the 175' maximum, but not by much. . DISTANCE BETWEEN TOWERS: PUD Section 3.5 Table II located on page OR 4368 Pages 2415-16 "BH (Building Height) Building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure." "SBH (Sum of Building Height) Combined Height of two adjacent buildings for the purpose of determining setback requirements." The setback formula in the chart is 0.5 SBH *Footnote 3 So if Tower 1 is 200' tall and Tower 2 is 200' tall, the sum is 400' and half of that would be 200'—the setback requirement or distance between buildings. *Footnote 3 below 3.5 Table II states, "Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed, or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced." When I pointed out to County staff that the Towers appeared to be much closer together than allowed, Christ Scott replied to me, "Setbacks are based on the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD Section 3.5 Table II. Per the approved PUD, the minimum separation between structures is half the building height; however, buildings with common architectural theme that are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks an be administratively reduced. The SDPA under review shows buildings with a separation of at least 100' measured from the towers and 72' measured between parking structures." When we pointed out to County staff that the above was an error in how to calculate the setback requirement, Christ Scott responded that his answer to me had been a "typo". . . In the transcript of the Planning Commissioners meeting on January 11 , 2008, a lengthy discussion of this issue of inadequate setbacks begins on page 46 and continues through page 66. On pages 65-66 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to not allow language in the Settlement Agreement stating that the setbacks between buildings would be a minimum of 100' and County attorney, Jeff Klatzkow, stated, "The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time." County staff is saying that they are allowed to make an "administrative reduction" to the distance between buildings because of *Footnote 3 quoted above. I have written to County staff that I could understand an "administrative reduction" of 6" or 6' or even 16'; however, sliding the buildings to within a hundred feet in the back and 72' in the front when the required distance between buildings is supposed to be 200' is unacceptable. We do not think it is in the public's interest to allow 5 buildings which are 310' wide to be only 100' apart at one point and 72' apart at another point. This will equate to a tall wall of concrete obstructing our view in perpetuity. We want to bring this to the attention of Collier County Commissioners NOW, before County staff gives Towers 2-5 approval to be built as proposed in SDPA PL20160002242. I question if County staff has been properly reviewing the SDP and the Settlement Agreement before they approve deviations requested by developer. t p ik , ,t ISA ' d \\fill ` t4- ."5"k "..t { - . -v1 Rb --t V' z r-mm i>C4 i',,, . r+ mmO-+ O zt ' cs• . k .. N,, 1 :... ...,, i ,, 3,,, .., , . „. , ..., ts-- * t 1 . K p.„ ..: • ).a. ; ct. tt 'It; t - Jill)a, 0 at . t ,, ..r.--. _. _ . ,„:.- .,.. . ,, ,, 0 . 4 1 I - ' l'i ' A J . 0'1 Vv j P4) 4. ? n "Z W A� d f gypst Rt `G r ; i.7,1: :o v m., illii.4414u) 0 :1,4 :. 4, mm0 --1 Z. V 4 et . '' t ' \ t% t i f .,,., y, „:,,,,,,',, ,' ti 'fit ,, fi. = L .„ QIIQCIlTIICIll 7111OJO p,ACIl Koiea 3ay weJ s, `i Arieii 1 *I e3 Apr7, c204/4 ' t Sports enthusiasts will also have plenty to cheer for, from Florida Everbiades Hockey and arena �h :> football with championship-winning Florida Tarpons at nearby Germain Arena or Spring Training baseball games with the Boston Red Sox and Minnesota Twins in Fort Myers in nearby Fort Myers. There's also great tennis, sport fishing, .: ; " power boat races and even the world famous .0- w> - - swamp buggy races on the"Mile of Mud"at Florida Southwest Florida;s famed as"The Golf Capi:ai of Sports Park. Of course, no sport may enjoy greater the Work." local significance than golf. With its prolific per capita composite of public and private holes, the region has been herald "The Golf Capital of the World." Southwest Florida is home to some of the finest fairways on the planet and , fortunately, a few can be found close to Kalea Bay. From the courses of Cypress Woods, Eag—Lake, Heritage Bay and Naples Beach Hotel to that of Tiburon aerie Ritz Carlton Golf Resort, (home of the annual Franklin Templeton Shootout), Kalea Bay is positioned in the epicenter of lfer's_naradise.„ For all that's been referenced, bear in mind this is just a fraction of what can be found close to Kalea i gay Bay. Families will appreciate the proximity to - ,r{ x "``�°-"4`— " ="` schools, supermarkets, parks, churches, _ ' z_ healthcare services and more. There's still much -- � , ..1:1- 7-_,„' more in outdoor activities, entertainment and ,, a�'tt,s,• „ X11,.. • rhprichpri rnrnmiinit't pvPnrc that take nlarP D "‘ HM C "< 3 r- 0 5 7 S 5 0 -0 o (r) o o 0 00 c x 5) a E 0- --, 0D- D * o" '..-4. =4 a 0 '5- 0 00 0 p0 a 0 o (D 03 -0 a o (47\ '' D _, 00 ..4. ..... • -.< - CD3 _. ..2.,, c 3 < cr) — (14 0 (1) c 2, P 0 ° ED a 0 (D 5 -"-±-' CD 0 0 -4. (-6 3 (4. 0- --, 3 P E ...< (D b 0 C --'-• 3 (n 0 (D (D 0" 2 (D ro 0- 0- •.< -4 o O 7„ 5' ((13 ? i3 -7, C 0 , 0 0,, c 0 a (73 (/) C ><C 0 0 • 0 .0 -63 • 0 a c -eD- -4- D -C, 5- C -+ (7) CD C) • -- 5 ...,. cD 0 cr: Z — 00 . 0 -4•• (-3 0 — '.< 0 ,7,, 0 — , 0 Q -4. 0 < 3 0 ...< o c 0 0 0-• D Z a0 o (I) n -1 0 D 0 =.• 0 .-4 -,, O cr:,) 7:3 3 -4- 3 D 3 0 0 a 4-4 CD 0 0 -44- (D o 3 0 0 D - 3 o .1/) C (1) CD-- --z- 6- CD cn --, 0 D 0 D Zii 0 _4. C D 0 30 c a -:-. c.) Cr tA tn 0 •f-11 0 5. in 0 0 - 0 ..< -0 -1 .... cn 03 -*-• * 1"'"`J 0 0 0, 3 -' < ...44 = 0- 0) cry (;) cT) 01, c" u) - 0 a ,..„ -4- o „--• 5 0_ -- " 0 ,..,.. CD 0 ? 0 ..4...,) a ..., s (DO •-:•,-: • • 3 0 2 CD< . cn u) 0 , 0 ,..., — CO o n '3> 0 0 U) . c 0 --i- a 0 ,a * cp 0 3 us -6 _ •:•.-.. cr. Z • FIF 0 --h 4- -4- -1 ca - 0 -4- -41 <• o SD a: 0 ...4 Fri -t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 cn D 0 0 0 Cl) 0 * 3 <-• a ... . rk0 , 0, (n 5' c 0 (1)., -ii3 < w 0 3a kI\ L.—.-- o 72%: D g: 0 --- --. -0 D "0 0 o a (Art of" -, 0 (DO (l) (0 5 -0 C0 * 0 0 cf) CD ::+: 0 • 0 C ..< CD •D -o ..,...... , (-6 0 sci,) - 0 0 0- z 0 0 —sl) .i, --, 0 CDU) - 3.r, C - --:. a Co 0 0 a C?) (I) 0 c, 5 0 ._.. 0 CD a a (n- --; 0 O 0 0 a 0 (/) 0 * 5-"- O (1) u? 0 3 CD * a cn 0 2: -a 0 OC 5 0CD a)) (71 ••• 3 .4- D O 0 P- if 0 < 0 0 (D 5-- ...... (D < _ (D ,... email-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17,3:15 PM Grn l FW: DEVLP 5699 - Rupnow / RE: Questions /Cocohatchee Bay - Kalea Bay ScavoneMichelle <MichelleScavone@colliergov.net> Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:57 AM To: "rupnowdiane@gmail.com"<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>, ScottChris <ChrisScott@colliergov.net>, BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>, LevyMichael <MichaelLevy@colliergov.net>, DeaneConnie <ConnieDeane@colliergov.net>, BlevinsCaroline<CarolineBlevins@colliergov.net>, McKennaJack <JackMcKenna@colliergov.net>, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>, FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net> Mrs.Rupnow, Staff has received your correspondence titled "Questions Glen Eden on the Lakes Homeowners Have Regarding the Cocohatchee Bay"Golf Course Parcel"and Kalea Bay"and have provided the following responses.For clarity purposes,your specific questions are provided below with staff responses in bold. 1. How many acres of wetlands have been cleared for the "golf course"? How many acres of wetlands have been preserved? Does that meet the minimum requirement? Mitigation? RESPONSE: Permitting for wetland areas, including mitigation for impacted wetlands,are handled at the State level.The site has an existing Environmental Resource Permit for the entire site. Per the Settlement Agreement/Planned Unit Development (PUD),the development is required to provide 308.0+/- acres of Open Space (Preserve,Lakes and Landscape Buffers); the development currently has 292.09-acres within existing Collier County Conservation Easements(CCCE),5.78- acres of retained wetlands and 1.46-acres of retained uplands outside of the CCCE,8.20-acres in Lakes and 1.41-acres in landscaped buffers (308.94-acres total). 2. Has the gopher tortoise colony been relocated? If not, how is it being protected? RESPONSE:The Gopher Tortoises within the impact areas were relocated offsite to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) authorized recipient sites. Ten of the twelve burrows remain in the upland preserve near the pond;those burrows have been fenced in for protection. 3. Where will people park when they come to golf? Where will entrance/exit be? Show me https://mail.google.com/mail(?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 1 of Gmail-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17, 3:15 PM on current plans. RESPONSE:The Site Development Plan (SDP)for the golf course development(AR-694) identifies a future clubhouse area that is accessed from US41. No parking areas were approved as part of the SDP approval. Per the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD, Section 4.3 F. parking will be provided based on the size of the clubhouse and will include the golf course parking. A Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) is required for any future clubhouse and associated parking. 4. Will the tunnel under Vanderbilt Drive be used? In what way? *** We would like you to clarify buffers.The Settlement Agreement states that Glen Eden has 67.5' of buffer adjacent to it and that the developer has 100' of buffer. That land was originally intended for Livingston Road construction to connect Vanderbilt to 41. RESPONSE:The Tunnel shown on the approved SDP (AR-694) notes that it is to be completed by others.The County has not received any applications for this improvement.The approved SDP shows an existing 100' preserve area adjacent to Glen Eden. 5. Has that road been abandoned and has that land been vacated to Glen Eden & developer. Golf course plans [SDP-2001-AR-6941 sent from Jack McKenna's office dated October 1, 2015 showed a "200' min. setback for single family structures from golf course PUD boundary (TYP)" Does that have anything to do with the buffers between Glen Eden and the golf course? RESPONSE: It appears you are referring to the Preservation Easement/Right-of-Way Reservation that is located north of the Cocohatchee Bay PUD, identified as Tract F of Glen Eden Phase One. That future roadway is not included in the County's Long Range Transportation Plan.In regards to the two residential units allowed in the GC Section of the Plan Unit Development(PUD) Master Plan,they have not been approved as part of the existing SDP (AR-694). If proposed in the future, they would be required to meet the setbacks established in the Settlement Agreement and Section 4.4 of the PUD: 200'from PUD boundaries, 20'from golf course district boundaries and private roads.The 200'to a PUD boundary would include any required buffer yard. 6. I want you to show me on current plans the buffer on all sides of the proposed golf course. How much is between G.C. & Glen Eden. How much is between G.C. and Tarpon Cove? RESPONSE: Per the approved SDP (AR-694) there is an existing 100' preserve area between the golf course and the northern PUD Boundary with Glen Eden.There is an approved lake, berm, landscaping and fence/wall between the golf course on the west side of Tarpon Cove; per the approved SDP,there is approximately 100-150' between the golf course and the property line. The approved plans identify the area on the northern boundary of Tarpon Cove as future development. https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 2 of Gmail-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE: Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1J29/17,3:15 PM 7. Is parcel 6 used in the G.C. plans—how? Road? RESPONSE:There is no parcel 6 shown on the approved plans. 8. So, when the developer shows up requesting a change in the rooftop, size of the lakes or distance between buildings, who in the Planning Dept. checks the request against the "acceptable deviations" in the Settlement Agreement before the request is approved or denied? RESPONSE: Staff would review any proposed changes to the site plan for consistency with the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD.The Planning Director and Zoning Manager would be the authority to determine if any deviations are acceptable. 9. (I looked at plans submitted to the SFWMD and those plans show tennis courts and guest suites in that area. Shouldn't the plans show the same land usage in that area? The diagram on the Kalea Bay website also shows tennis courts and guest suites in that area.) Which plans show the TRUTH??? RESPONSE:The west side of Vanderbilt Drive,on the northern portion of the PUD, have been approved with Tennis, guest cottages,parking and a maintenance building with the SDPA, P120150000420. 10. We would like to see a plan of the entire Kalea Bay complex—not just Tower One. RESPONSE:The current development is split into three separate Site Development Plans.The golf course,east of Vanderbilt Drive,is included in AR-694. Building 1,the Clubhouse,tennis courts, guest cottages and maintenance building is included in SDPA-P120150000420, Kalea Bay Phase I. Buildings 2-5, Kalea Bay Phase II-VI was originally approved by SDP-AR-5284 and is currently being amended by SDPA, P120160002242 (currently under review). 11. Where are we in the permitting process on the land east of Vanderbilt? Is there a time limit on completing the "golf course?" Are these plans approved forever or do they ever expire? When do they expire? RESPONSE:The area east of Vanderbilt has an approved SDP,AR-694 and is currently under construction.Once construction has commenced,the permits/plans are considered active. All infrastructure improvements within 30 months of the pre-construction meeting and any subsequent extension, per LDC 10.02.03 H.3. 12. Where are we in the site plan for Kalea Bay west of Vanderbilt? Does Tower 2 have all its permits in place and approved? RESPONSE:Towers 2-5 are currently under review for SDPA approval (P120160002242). https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...mI=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 3 of; Gmail-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17,3:15 PM 13. (*** If you go to the Kalea Bay website and look at the diagram of the towers,they appear to be much closer together than on the SDP's.)_How can that be okay? RESPONSE: Setbacks are based on the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD Section 3.5 Table II. Per the approved PUD,the minimum separation between structures is half the building height; however, buildings with common architectural theme that are angled,skewed or offset from one another,and walls are not parallel to one another,the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The SDPA under review shows buildings with a separation of at least 100' measured from the towers and 72' measured between parking structures. 14. How do cabanas and guest suites and tower manager's homes affect the maximum 590 density? RESPONSE: Cabanas and guest suites are considered permitted uses and are not counted as dwelling units. On behalf of Christopher O.Scott,AICP,LEED-AP Planning Manager- Development Review Michelle Scavone, GMD Operations Coordinator From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdianecginail.corn] Sent: Friday,January 13, 2017 4:00 PM To: BosiMichael Subject: Questions Dear Mike, Thanks for meeting with me today. I am attaching the list of questions we have about the Cocohatchee Bay golf course and the Kalea Bay towers project. Please forward them to Jack McKenna or Matt McClean or the proper person who can answer these questions for us. https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 4 of Gmail-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE: Questions I Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17,315 PM In reviewing the responses below for Diane I think there is a problem with the answer to Question 13. The separation between buildings is 0.5 the Sum o'F Building Height, not Building Height. Attached is how I understood this requirement when presented to the Planning Commission when I was a member. Brad S'c:„ Sfer MA 239.254.0285 FYI I received this response from County Growth Management Dept. today. Please read and provide your feedback. Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane©gmail.com 402 580-1545 Forwarded message From: ScavoneMichelle <MichelleScavone c©colliergov.net> Date: Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:57 AM Subject: FW: DEVLP 5699- Rupnow / RE: Questions/Cocohatchee Bay- Kalea Bay To: "rupnowdiane©g'rnail.CQm" <rupnowdiane@grnail.corn> Cc: McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean©colliergov.net>, ScottChris <ChrisScottcccolliergov.net>, BosiMichael <MviichaelBosi©colliergov.net>, LevyMichael <MichaelLevy@coiliergov.net>, DeaneConnie <ConnieDeane©colliergov.net>, BlevinsCaroline <Caroline Bievinsgcoiliergov.net>, McKennaJack <JackMcKennat©coliiergov.net>, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison©Colliergov.net>, FrenchJames <jamesfr enchccolliergov.net> Mrs.Rupnow, Staff has received your correspondence titled"Questions Glen Eden on the Lakes Homeowners Have Regarding the Cocohatchee Bay"Golf Course Parcel" and Kalea Bay" and have provided the following responses.For clarity purposes,your specific questions are provided below with staff responses in bold. https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 6 of 7 Gmail-F W:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1/29/17,315 PM Thanks! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmaii.com 402 580-1545 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:18 PM To: Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>, David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>, Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>, Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>, Ralf Brookes <Ralf@ralfbrookesattorney.com> Cc:jodiebert@reagan.com, brad@taxis-usa.com, Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>, nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Bcc: "feegroup@aol.com"<feegroup@aol.com> FYI I received this response from County Growth Management Dept. today. Please read and provide your feedback. Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmaii.com 402 580-1545 [Quoted text hidden] Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com> Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:33 PM To: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> FYI (Brad Schiffer Air 239.254.0285 From: Brad Schiffer AIA [mailto:brad@TAXIS-usa.com] Sent: Sunday,January 29, 2017 3:33 PM To: `MichaelBosi@Colliergov.net' <MichaelBosi@Colliergov.net>; 'ChrisScott@Colliergov.net` <ChrisScott@Coll iergov.net> Subject: RE: FW: DEVLP 5699 - Rupnow/ RE: Questions/Cocohatchee Bay- Kalea Bay https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cc8d052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 5 of Gmait-FW:DEVLP 5699-Rupnow/RE:Questions/Cocohatchee Bay-Kalea Bay 1129117,3:15 PM 13. (*** If you go to the Kalea Bay website and look at the diagram of the towers,they appear to be much closer together than on the SDP's.)_How can that be okay? RESPONSE: Setbacks are based on the approved Settlement Agreement and PUD Section 3.5 Table Per the approved PUD, : however,buildings with common architectural theme that are angled,skewed or offset from one another, and walls are not parallel to one another,the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The SDPA under review shows buildings with a separation of at least 100' measured from the towers and 72' measured between parking structures. On behalf of Christopher 0.Scott,AICP, LEED-AP Planning Manager - Development Review Michelle Scavone, GMD Operations Coordinator 2 attachments PUD Table 1.pdf 75K 7-71 distance between buildings.pdf 42K https://mail.google.com/mailini=28tik=515654168a&view=pt&search...m1=159cc798852786cf&sim1=159cad052590f6a&sim1=159ebeecfdcf58b4 Page 7 of'; RALF BROOKES, ATTORNEY Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law February 7,2017 Collier County do Collier County Attorney In Re: Cocohatchee Bav/Kalea Bay Development Issues Dear Collier County I represent a number of adjacent property owners and residents who have the following objections and concerns regarding the above referenced development: 1. The setback between the first building and proposed second building at Kalea Bay does not meet the minimum building setback of 1/2 the buildings sum height(i.e.,the total building heights when added together)which is at least 200' See,Table 3.5 in 4368 OR.Book p .2375, and 4368 OR.Book pp.2415-2416,and instead would provide less than 100 ft.in building separation. a. An administrative deviation should not be used to drastically and substantially reduce the setback between buildings by more than 100' and more than 1/2 the required setback. b. It is unreasonable to grant an administrative deviation of more than 100 feet and more than 1/2 the required setback without another public hearing to provide an opportunity for adjoining and nearby property owners to be heard regarding this substantial deviation. c. The similar architectural design of the 2 buildings does not alleviate the reduction the views by over 100'through the buildings that would impact the view of adjoining and neighboring residents(sometime colloquially referred to as the"condo canyons"effect). d. The calculation of building height sum for the setback is even greater than 400'because there is a habitable dwelling unit located on 2nd Floor Garage(See,Building Permit Plans depictingMANAGER's QUARTERS on the 2"d Floor Garage). This garage floor containing the managers dwelling unit should have been included in the building height calculation for the purposes of calculating building height sum for building setbacks, -or the manager's quarters should be removed from the building plans. 2. We are also concerned that the developer not miss,and that the County monitor and be aware of, the rapidly approaching,upcoming requirements contained in the Settlement Agreement: a. Of particular concern is the approaching deadline required by paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement for recording Restrictive Covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of the golf course parcel before or at the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the 1st bldg. Kalea Bay Tower 1,which is approaching Certificate of Occupancy in mid-2017 b. Similarly,Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement requires a 10-ft sidewalk be completed before,at or upon C.O. in 2017. We are referring these objections to the County for review and any necessary actions. Best regards, /s/Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral,Fl 33904 Phone(239)910-5464;fax(866)341-6086 RalfBrookes@,gmail.com Attachments Each building is 200+' Sum of Building Height=400+' Building Setback is 200+' t See OR Book 4368 Page 2375 and 2415(attached) s Ct CA .11 it i �' .0 C Q • t0 0 Mia L 1,.. 76 O L _� 3j :0(§0 N 'rII 11) CU J3 HI a en CL ns 3 • , . 0 N f C 4-, L. 'd m Y C ....tt T t N ea . j , L o 0 E L 4. o 111'2 u 4 Crii f4) ei N � n L, 43 a, 3 OR: 4368 PG: 2375 COCOEATCB>i'i BAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TABLE 1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS "RIr' 912^ HIGH-RISE MUL1I-FAIRLY Mtn Fatally Dwsilimp • Mlaieata Lot Area N/A 1 Ace _ Mltsisst-Lot WIdti N/ANIA Frost Yard-Internal Road 01 . 0.5 BH not las 03 BH not las than 25 feet than 25 fen r Ftnut Yard-Amway Bldg. 03 BH not las 0.5 BH not lest I ciadlag Parking Structure than ZS fen than 25 feet Front Yard-Vanderbilt Drive BH N/A •Front Yard-Aoessssry Bldg. 50 NIA SW Yard 0.5 BH 15 Rear Yard PrIebeiral 1 0.5 BH 15 ReirYard Aocwory \-;>"----- 1cR c3 > 5 10 Maxims Bldg 20 �? 35 / L, height t2 Didasoe Retinal 0 S SB ••3 OS BH trot las j boa 15 feet n t Row Area/km. , 1 1200 SF 1Tr 0 • • @l3 (Bsitdbi Wstek&Miq Ye tie retial distance ` Yabina*finished floor desks~a Ike apperaoraiiiat aeration albs V• SUFICitadBr ANHsip1)Ccent+iu of tonadjeceabuiieiry ip ofdsrnsii[slacknoriwas et. -tY AB dittos ase in Ism miss mberwlse aosd Ti j L c't �ii� •1 Fine pnds dad be reeurmd as fodoaa: A. If the prod is served by a public riW of-n ey.robe*is memmed from die adjsrast rislot-of-iny tire, B. tithe pmsl is served by a private road.sateck is nimere ad from the beck daub Garbed)or editor sesame a(tees sorbed). '2 Soldied he*for de mirth pepany lire adjacent 1s MborTrace in Melt 1"tract Mail be Mamas amrim fora mssimtm Waite of 130 feet. 4.4'3Whose balkiest midi nsother.the snbselt'tants cosmos ardeitecteral Some ase tedond. , Ie4!toned a offset from ass moodier.sad mods as not model r err 3.3 ._}........... __ __ nR• 4368 PGS 2415 -- IT 4 l .. 2. Roaeatiooal uses such as, bac not limited to, clubhouse, fitness center, health spa,tennis courts,swimming pools or similar recreation uses. 3. Any other aocessosy use which is comparable in name with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Department Director determines to be compatible in the 4H=as Districts. ' 3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1 A. Table I g sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "it" F Resideodsl Districts. B. Standards for parlsstg, landacapiag, sips and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Cocohstebee Bay PUD,are to be in axadeoce with Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated,required yards, heights,and floor area standards ;• to priucipai structures. C. Off♦treet . :,viay R C o , , _ shall be accessed by pig Iaisles or dri . 'tare separate , • .• . which seem more than one j development space area of not '- , • ten fee (10') in width as mem , „ ..1_- ,.-. -I , 1 separate any parting aide � II 7 • - 'ilii,jii r 1%."''' � .�.: wan +moi , I. . ' , s .. . ,, t — INVILOPMOTT STANDARDS MIRgay SWUM 1111014111111 IMAXIMOINI ins faiiirMai-Fmk birdlime 95131111111e Mile n Lot Ana N/A S,Mr,s 1AINL trauma Lot R1lii WA WA 14/A Riot/lard-Lest..d Lad •t 03 BH tot Isla 03 1s11 tin r RioyL taut 23 Int iaaiist 11 25 lis_.. 1ftsnt Yard - '- - 1 SW& 0.5 BH tot ins GURU asaissa 0.5 81133..1 t... Ltdadla r Parld a Ila ne tars dna 25 feet dttn-chit doll 25 la_ Freud Yard-Vwietit Dove BH WA NIA Frost Yard-Aee tarmy Utile. 50 Mde Yard 03 BA 4e Lar Yard FrI l l 03 311 ori Iii Ler Yard Amami 15 4 0 14 3.2 F 2/28/O11 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2416 F- u- -.Illasams> ___ • 20*Mies tot a tentio@s bsidltd200beet '2 Dionne@$dww.Pb'-- i t SPenebew 03 SBH acini.lib. Lijaggikg. i@e-Kane♦ 15 jet /bee Axes Iib. (SA) 1100 SF 1200 W 1mD W a4 3 Meddles Heidt)r Mang beiet able be no venial iionoe.ra.trd trite the dna bdidjbh Mina Boat demise* dr agNt.nt li@Yba ening demise of the menwire. 4m et suet MOO Ccadinea Matt d two jea.t badly *sr the mons et deter.ieieg newt nopienAl amao@r die b is eines otherwise soled, •1 Past yids shed be seeswd.follow. A 1f the pend le semi by a psblie sight-et-way.aMben is emend bate the a jeoeet dgm-oFwf lice. S. 1f ds peed is semi by a prime toed.Nibs&is.eae@ed bate the beck at cern N embed)at wise et persaat Of Wit coned). '2 nodes night ter the ands preparty lies nkat b Arbor Thee to the Mc'toot deli be jj ii sods tot a.eeiea. bdsbt et171440hot. p e3 bass bduir ldhs+Ma ones. - • 1� C . nesse Slew nes maw.nal voles we an pentad to nes well er,the stands- • • . r" i0 PILT ti s,„ rj� T f , • 3.3 212816 revision , _ 2 1, 1 r/ - : S 1 (i 1 I I l i i v..33ldvrl f t. 3 di o f N V1 p t . r l , i;. o { 4 5 . 2\. O i I1t'=`i1 #!# 1 HI # l`»11ill 111 swniNiwoaNO� � <6 ./�' L !� � e! 3 !3 :! !e ti 0 to ><W ,:l .s=.#,,; � , ,:, g€> ,.s € a iso AVG V31VN C T I i ,Nii : q ' ,''' '1 T . „,, :.:,.„ 1.,, ; rt.. , 1 ° ��% I.�iil (t{{: :I;�-tom, I i it s rte. : _ i i 1e ' K7 " v u_- �> _ f�1.._. jo-y — r 1 .. 1 L . C v L9 © ,� .13 15iiiiiii, 9 ,fes ® %%%//% ; t- — R a ,V.,/ .e. ,liarfark, ... 1 5-:El ,ti---.,--- -— -a : 4-, -Ai .1 me j' ,n ° °_ 1-imi - - ---i j i , itAl 1 e ________L-- __ Inn: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345IN m 126.e0 CIiI TO TU MAID UCOODID in the OIIICIAL UCOIDS of COW!' COMITY, IL COPIIS 17.00 MIMICS 4T! IIAOI 04/10(2011 it 10:440 D1I( ? I. !LOCI, CLAM IIT 7240 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this`W.\day of L,w.,. , , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle 4 :- :.•• and WHEREAS, the PUD 'r(• : on is also som „sts eferred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD;and /, `in r � WHEREAS, Lodge fil-i . •• titn�fo ", 10 : ..!1 4 • T entieth Judicial Circuit in r'- V l, � t•—•,- and for Collier County, F •• •. . a • 4 e -41,.! ty' • i inn concerning the proposed -,\\� _ ; amendment to the PUD's Ba f- .• le Management Pl t� being styled Lodge Abbott 1_. l.,' Associates.LLC v. Collier CounK - - t~` LIEC1R WHEREAS, on or around May 1, 2 , Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Hams Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.;and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4Xc) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the - regulations at issue. ----__.__. 1 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. ) As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy,Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, `j they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses ;;''7 described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this I f; `' requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or !• 1., • ever discontinued or abandoned for L any reason, then all of the �t including wi•T •tjh itation the entire golf course development area, except fQr/ti • io •. • •1 for th• tw (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green opti •:7~.. ' 't1).; h " to uses expressly allowed r^ I , in Paragraph 5.3 of the •• • s II . e".' , isions to these restrictive •J covenants will require a su• . .•, ty vote of the :• '• f " • , Commissioners. 9. To fully satisfy i •r • •, • : ,,,L•S.idewalks along adjacent off-site 1TE CI public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway en (10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006)in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached -- as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST,:- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGI 'E ItOCI4,CLERK COLLIER C• TY,F ORIDA By: I o i„/ By: 1/ v ak M"tR 041 " P - s uty lerk TOM I G,C • �' • signature alts'"" WI SES;4 1 ..41.,42_ 7- Signed Name 4. l G� AtOelt/Yck Print.• Name • deo. Si-�/-, Name r t rfig, :BOTT ASSOCIATES,LLC j gs ( l d/ ITS: .l*. Printed Name Ap• •ved as to form j ir 71111\C27 and e: S: • �, . c E-. III a►.�fa Je .4 A. Kl ow N` -1Q 1 Co Atto 1T.-y �r 9 2/28/08 revision GoodnerAngela Subject: Diane Rupnow&Judy Palay Location: Commissioner Office, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Start: Fri 1/20/2017 11:00 AM End: Fri 1/20/2017 11:30 AM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndrew Required Attendees: Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com); rupnowdiane@gmail.com Categories: Commission Chambers Cocohatchee golf course 1 Questions Glen Eden on the Lakes Homeowners Have Regarding the Cocohatchee Bay"Golf Course Parcel" and Kalea Bay Regarding the Golf Course adjacent to our properties: OHow many acres of wetlands have been cleared for the "golf course"? How many acres of wetlands have been preserved? Does that meet the minimum requirement? Mitigation? 2. Has the gopher tortoise colony been reloc�ted? If not, how is it being protected? lJJ Ps- S lh & . A �<^'- ? -t-o (LL Com 7 (pWhere will people park when they come to golf? Where will entrance/exit `fie? Show me on current plans:—`-' 4. Will the tunnel under Vanderbilt Drive be used? In what way? *** We would like you to clarify buffers. The Settlement Agreement states that Glen Eden has 67.5' of buffer adjacent to it and that the developer has 100' of buffer. That land was iriginally intended for Livingston Road construction to connect Vanderbilt to 41. .- 5. Has that road been abandoned and has that land been vacated to Glen Eden & developer. Golf course plans [SDP-2001-AR-694] sent from Jack McKenna's office dated b October 1, 2015 showed a "200' min. setback for single family structures from golf course PUD boundary (TYP)" Does that have anything to do with the buffers between Glen Eden and the golf course? 6. I want you to show me on current plans the buffer on all sides of the proposed golf course. How much is between G.C. & Glen Eden. How much is • between G.C. and Tarpon Cove? 7. Is parcel 6 used in the G.C. plans—how? Road? *** The Settlement Agreement clearly limits the use of the G.C. parcel to golf course, green open space with passive uses or at the most 2 estate style homes like large horse ranches. We are not questioning the developer's right to build a golf course adjacent to us. *** We DO question the developer's TRUTHFULNESS. We DO think his current actions defy LOGIC. Item 2 in the Settlement Agreement states, "This agreement and release expressly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release,the original PUD will control." 0411 8. So, when the developer shows up requesting a change in the rooftop, size of the lakes or distance between buildings, who in the Planning Dept. checks the request against the "acceptable deviations" in the Settlement Agreement before the request is approved or denied? ***On June 17, 2015, the developer extended a 2004 golf course permit (revised in 2008) and soon after that, began clearing the land under the guise of building a golf course. I called Matt McLean's office and Jack McKenna's asking they inspect and make sure the clearing was allowed by the permit. They got back to me that all clearing was allowed by the extended golf course permit. ***It defies LOGIC to think that Lodge Abbot is going to put a golf course on that land. At the December 18, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, Richard Grant (developer's current attorney) stated that they had abandoned the golf course and that golf is no longer as profitable or as popular as it once was. Several golf courses have gone to the County wanting to rezone their golf courses to residential. The Commissioners put a moratorium on those types of requests and appointed a committee to research a possible conversion process. I have read the Golf Course Conversion document and found the language to be vague a which could lead to broad interpretation by lawyers down the road. We expect this developer will come to the county in May and say. "Gosh I was going to build a golf course and I already cleared the land in preparation to build a golf course.but it just occurred to me that golf is no longer the popular sport it once was so I might not make a profit so I want to use this conversion process to convert this property to residential." On April 16. 2016 I sent an email to County Commissioners, Matt McLean, Daryl Hughes, Paula Brethauer, Michelle Scavone, Jack McKenna, Steve Nagle, Nick Casalanguida, Leo Ochs, and Jeff Klatzkow entitled, "Golf Course Permit is a Sham." I attached a screen shot of the Kalea Bay website section on amenities that informed prospective buyers about highly regarded golf courses nearby. One or more of the above recipients shared that information with the developer and within days the website was changed. The word "golf" is no longer mentioned anywhere on the Kalea Bay website. It defies LOGIC that a website trying to sell Kalea Bay condos would not include a section on the 0 great golf course they are building right across the road! TRUTH is missing here! I also shared in that message that I went to the Kalea Bay sales office and was told three times that they had no intention of building a golf course. I don't know what they are telling people now, but I would encourage you to go there yourself to find out what the sales staff is telling potential buyers today about a golf course... The response from the County was that you do not factor a developer's promotional materials into your decision making. I understand that—I really do. In return I ask you to understand our perspective. ***I asked to see the most current plans for the golf course and I was sent the plans I brought with me to our meeting. I paid $18 to have them enlarged so I could read them and now you tell me they are not the most current plans. . . . These plans show a driving range and putting green on the west side of Vanderbilt. I looked at plans submitted to the SFWMD and those plans show tennis courts and guest suites in that area. Shouldn't the plans show the same -)ir land usage in that area? The diagram on the Kalea Bay website also shows tennis courts and guest suites in that area. 9. Which plans show the TRUTH??? The original SDP's and the acceptable deviations stipulated in the Settlement Agreement should serve to show the county and the public what the development will look like upon completion. 10. We would like to see a plan of the entire Kalea Bay complex—not just Tower One. 11. Where are we in the permitting process on the land east of Vanderbilt? Is there a time limit on completing the "golf course?" Are these plans approved forever or do they ever expire? When do they expire? 12. Where are we in the site plan for Kalea Bay west of Vanderbilt? Does Tower 2 have all its permits in place and approved? *** If you go to the Kalea Bay website and look at the diagram of the towers, they appear to be much closer together than on the SDP's. 13. How can that be okay? Those of us driving down Vanderbilt and looking west would like to see a gap between those buildings. . . Those Settlement Agreement drawings were made so that the County and neighbors would know what Kalea Bay was going to look Iike. I spoke to Donna Reed Caron and Brad Schiffer about this and they agree with me. 14. How do cabanas and guest suites and tower manager's homes affect the maximum 590 density? ***we expect County government to be run with TRANSPARENCY. County Government should not be like "Let's Make a Deal." We expect everyone who approves anything for Kalea Bay or the "Golf Course" to enforce terms in the Settlement Agreement. Cocohatchee Bay Facts/Time Line The Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved in 2000 and included 532.09 acres of land, 590 dwelling units, 4 towers 20 stories tall, 1 tower 15 stories tall, a golf course with 3 holes west of Vanderbilt and 15 holes east of Vanderbilt. Of the 590 dwelling units, 110 units were approved east of Vanderbilt and 480 units were approved in the towers. The 2000 PUD also included a Bald Eagle Management Plan in which Abbott agreed to a "no construction zone" within 750' of the bald eagles' nest (1500' during nesting season.) When the bald eagle was removed from the endangered species list, Abbott applied for and received approval from state and federal agencies and submitted a site development plan. Planning Commission advised that a PUD amendment to amend the Bald Eagle Management Plan would first be required. May 10, 2005 BCC heard Abbott's amendment and disapproved by a vote of 4-1 . Abbott began litigation in June of 2005. May 1 , 2006 Abbott served a Bert Harris Notice of Claim on the County for over $247 million. At its December 12, 2006 Commissioners authorized making a written settlement offer to Lodge Abbott. Yovanovich assured Commissioners that his client would not be back asking to put housing on the golf course land. April 22, 2008 BCC approved Settlement Agreement. The document was dated June 9, 2008 and recorded by the Clerk of Courts on June 10th The Settlement allowed108 dwelling units to be moved from the eastern parcel to the towers and assured that "if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reasons, then all of the GC Parcel including without limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those portions allowed for 2 residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the amended PUD Preserve Parcel" To read entire settlement go to: http://media.wix.com/ugd/d6f3a1 6aecd24ad6d948849c6b3cfec23e6cf4.pdf December 31 , 2013- Abbott submitted a proposal to build 280 dwelling units on Golf Course Parcel. This included multi-family housing and senior assisted living. March 19, 2014 -At NIM meeting at St. John's Church about 700 concerned citizens voiced opposition to Abbott's proposal. April 14 & 15, 2014- Meetings were hosted by_Commisioner Hiller so developer could meet with HOA leaders from surrounding subdivisions and charm them into approving of the 62 homes on %2 acre lots. May 2, 2014- Meeting at Hiller's Orange Blossom office at which new building proposal of 62 homes on �2 acres lots was shared with 3 of Glen Eden leaders. August, 2014- Abbott submitted new proposal to Planning Commission for approval to build 62 luxury homes on1/2 acre lots. December 18, 2014 Planning Commission approved proposal to build 62 homes on 1/2 acre lots. Mid January—March, 2015- Area residents vocalized opposition to opening the settlement agreement, amending it and rezoning the land from golf course to residential. March 24, 2015- At BCC meeting Commissioners Taylor and Fiala refused to support rezoning the land. Commissioners voted 5--0 to NOT reopen the Settlement Agreement. April 7, 2015- Richard Grant, the petitioner's attorney, sent an 8 page letter to County Manager asking BCC for reconsideration and threatening to sue the county if it wasn't granted. • April 14, 2015- At BCC meeting Hiller made a motion to bring this matter up for reconsideration. None of the other Commissioners would second it. April 26, 2015- The threat to sue the county was recanted in a full page $7,000 ad in Naples Daily News purportedly as a good-will gesture to the community when in fact the developer had no basis for a suit. June 17, 2015- Developer extended a 2004 Golf Course permit. September, 2015 Developer cleared two large sections of land and hauled hundreds of truck loads of fill from the Kalea Bay area to the golf course land. In September and again in November, Diane Rupnow contacted Matt McLean's and Daryl Hughes' offices to ask that inspectors go to the golf course parcel to see if there were permit violations. I was assured that all hauling of dirt and clearing of land was in compliance with the golf course permit. On April 16, 2016 Diane Rupnow sent an email to County Commissioners, county attorney, county manager, county planning commissioners, Daryl Hughes and Matt McClean Informing them that the golf course permit that the developer extended was a sham. There is no mention of a golf course being contructed in the amenities section of the Kalea Bay website and the Kalea Bay sales agent told my friend and me three times that they had no plans to build a golf course. Diane Rupnow requested the most recent golf course plans from Jack McKenna's office and those plans show 18 holes of golf crammed on the golf course parcel east of Vanderbilt Dr. and a driving range and other golf amenities on the west side of Vanderbilt. Plans the developer sent to SFWMD show tennis courts and guest suites in that driving range area. The Kalea Bay diagram on the website also show tennis courts and guest suites in that golf course amenities section. Shouldn't plans for land use sent to the County and the SFWMD be the same? If defies logic that the developer is truly clearing that land to build a golf course. On September 2, 2016 Dwight Brock, Clerk of Courts verified that Case No. 05-967-CA had never been recorded by Collier County or the developer. Jeffrey Klatzkow was the county attorney who signed the agreement in 2008 and he is still the county attorney. We think it must be illegal that the county didn't record the Settlement Agreement with the court. . . A colleague has sent Klatzkow several emails asking why the Settlement Agreement was not recorded. His response was that there is no need to record it since neither the county nor the developer are accusing the other of violating terms of the agreement. What about citizens of Collier County who feel that terms of the Settlement Agreement are being violated. Much more of the land has been cleared during the past two months. It appears that all that is left is a fringe of trees around the border. We can't put back the centuries old cypress trees that have been destroyed or restore the wetlands, but we can insist that the only thing that he can do with that land is build a golf course or leave it along to grow back . . . We want the 20 Judicial Court to help us see that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are upheld and it isn't even recorded there. In 2016, several Collier County golf courses not able to make a profit requested that they be allowed to change their zoning to residential. OCn April 12, 2016, ounty Commissioners put a moratorium on those requests until this spring when County staff are supposed to have new amendments drafted which will stipulate golf course conversion procedures. We fear the developer is going ahead and clearing the land getting it ready for residential development so that when the new amendment is in place, he will have a fast track to change the zoning from golf course to residential. • • r^• Y V` • - W / ,// W * :, ..-°. '. .- PACTICE • 1 W *i TEE I I i/// I /, / / .: y '-iV PRACTICE RANGE }. 1 { iiiiii/. ,)) TEACHING E LIMITS OF l' I + '. �%i/ W j. E ► GOLF LAKE'• AMENDMENT I - r • r : t i1 ...:„..,4,,, W '4. ! I ► W * .•iiI1. 1 • f ! WI W ". tel RLI T , 1, / 4I * W W * 'kr 0 GIN.. E• I W W 4 * 4. * ' ONRV 10 l ►j" ` W W W W � 4. .► W W W WI �4. Al Z . `y * * i 4. * V 4•; 4• 1 W W W W W W W ► 1y 4. W W W W W ' ' I' W :• 1 W *my.ikL. W W W 4. h . I• *\,,, WWYWWWWyWWWWWWW I I 4:1 fr ,W W W W W W 016• ' 4. 1 • .-+ y y ♦ y Y . ' 1 W• W W J iJIr/r * / Y W W W W . I I (5 r.r 1 y 4. y y W 4i Vi • II k. rW W4. t• kie* � rI LIMI S JOF W W W •44• : 14%. r'-' W .CON ERV.A770N. 4. 4. �i! '4 i4. Es •E.Nr (c.£.) W -: I 21 `W W W WW „ • ' y /W W . W W W Y 41 •, W •, W W W W W W W .�4♦ 0) y 4* J W W W W W W W W W / y y W W W W W '' 1 e ' y •/.4. W W y W W y W � ``� y` ty.i . * 1 W W W 4. W W W * ‘Fe,„,„'�vet "4•.•, • 1 W 4• W W W W ray W ✓ /L W •�. + "p • 4, • 4. 4. 4. W W W . L /J. W • Aill Q W W \ W W W W W ru, 1.17..0. VLV J5. . * - W W . W 4' W � v JO/ W O ' \ \ 9,, .2., .-W y 'fl W W 4. W . a�9.: . W W W i i W `W W W W W 4. J V W . . / J. 4• 4) W W.M.H. L. �. t W J J• {1 /1.. I I j .0'-"W W W W J' Y v W y W - - . I I 1 I * '�^* '25''PROPRIETARY* * "f-...__ * I 1 • I///i - W •1 * EA'SF.MENT v W W W 1 I//I . W W 1W y 4. 4. * W 4. * W I 1 ///I . y 1 W ..• . W W W I ,,,, J / W •Y y"-- 1 //,,, I / t _ v 14. v /' 4. -30-. W * ,. / \ I ,:40 •.. •_. - W `-P`4. L W W -1.i� * , ///// v v . . y W W W W W ,, 1 \ \ - ___ . . . _ . , : ' .: • ISI „it ,, , ., . . _ .. .1 , , . . . • , , ,, . . `y ,, - ._ :, - =- .. ' ! !! Irl !/1//!r!1!//J --..- JJ///////II ////////I /. i i _-W + i W W y i y * W •W 'J W * W y II/////!// /I////// ////I. /////////!/J /I////// /////. r V y W W * W W W i W iW i y W y y * J W W /61,//I/!/ ��.• • J * W J ' 4' r W W W y p. 'T -.. •. /HALFWAY A ® . W W ..moi W W W �• t' • /lee a +•'`� W � Wi }�iii// s '+' v0y W Q� • }•�'.:1!!!:•_•• * W 4 W 4. _. •:b •••••••••,.r.r/.' • t .•.y.-•am • y w W W t � W W y /•-1� ///r////////I /r/ '1, W W y W ''.i © y i r/////Irl/// ' t•'1 ' ` . , W W i W W `�' , , . ='=,.V W W W W W ya'`�,.' . F. W W y W W W W.\ • � � W j :�.:O � .. / • i Alt", . -4 Aviir • W ,.� ��} -VbORYrf` ' 0,000 _�- yy v '•.,_.•-•.... . `~ t``� ' LAKE—'T: 4. r-,.\ ..._iii ' R.ESTROO' �' • FAGILTE f . f � • IW, .y W . LAKE-1 }3 4. //I l///.. // . • J . - Li • ... • .// //r/// r W W W � • i/ II// / // WJyyt� Se . • • • ////// I/1/I/ / W J W y y w /e../.4,-",/:- j W ////I///////////////l/ ////,'J . G 1. W!//!//// /!/IIr/I/!!/// + / ' .0' /Jot,/ • y.'''�' /I///J//!IJ////Jr!//J!/! \ l / //J p W I!!! /!//Illllrllr/!// W W * * W W ; ' • /// // ) ///// /I// // , y y W W V //I/ le 1 ////////////////// r• •. +� ff,0 ' ! l/f//tIf///////! ', /II//// //// t I !/III • � V W *'"#''' v .i.,' ',di,/ \ • . ..3 / / / / // t-) ` A /r///r/I _ i * J i. � a. 4,' CUTr, :::..1'::::' •• , * W , OVERSTORY • s /!/!//// E-2 lit AKE-5 Q' � ON ' I // / ! : ' / ! ! J,. ' III !! • ////// I//I ' . may /// / // / If. , //IJ////I• y/!//1 ♦//!/ / // /!//! /I / / / y . i t/I// //////// p .: ' // !J/ J1/!J //J/!/!!J//!/ . ,,,,,,,/,4,;(4....4,,,..., /, ,-, • /!// /J/ ; !! //ma / /!I/ �.: , 140 1\ . '......' --. / /: !I//!// // I/If////! r //I/ iUII = / . I//I//. f, //////!/////II/////// • . /IIIII//////!/II/l/ /1;"1./4. /!!, ./ /// /!///////J! r/l// ocI % _ /!!! /// /II/! //II/ / /!!///! • i 0. .7!1111'.. '' ''''k I ) . // !!// , 1 IIIII �� +�,r LAKE )• /! ) II • s. -. 0%. / , lI ,mr. O J • 1 • • II/ . /!// 411, //// // .L. / r///,/ /// //// I!////I////f ///II//f///r///I. I ///,J'`• - ///// / LAKE-3 ,,,,,,.-..%.,...,,-�4 '• /l////////!ll//////!///!r/J! . 1 •• ' /rJ I//// • }...•J. ��.a_•+'•"•4x. 1' • ....0 w I/III!/r///II///////////r// L. : �I// ///I/ . • 'r/ill�ltll`+\:\`'t'"' _,,,r!•!//r!!r/!J��!!r///r//J M1 - //! r/r/// • . „„:,,.....,,,,,, • • /////• /j ..� . ... /I/////// i// //J// s/ i // /////I// // / /II////// /l///,I// •. J I////AW//1/ / . 'eel J/1 1 . r//I!////II/////////I II//r/!/II/////////�(,.(.(I/f///////!I//////!/ ////I/J'////./// ///J J!/- ' /iIlr///I/////// //I////////////!{y(�f'///////I/I/I////IIIII //!/l u///l! .. ..wolgii //////I/!/!//s/• v//I/IIIII/!//I/II/ / JJ ,/I .., __ GIN PASS—ROAfl= .R. _ t = _ —___—} 1 1._. _ ��OJ HT sues — — ,F Ni __i f/A'.— TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION / © IMPACTS FOR STORM INSTALLATION, CLEARING LIMITS SUMARRY GOLF COURSE SDP* f RESTORE WITH UPLAND AND / WETLAND PLANTINGS UPON DESCRIPTION AREA (ACRES) //� COMPLETION OF STORM GOLF COURSE 69.59 INSTALLA770N. OTHER OPEN SPACE(TO BE CLEARED) 23.14 a1 CARTPATHS/BOARDWALKS 5.04LAKES 1X$5i'il •'' TEMP. ACCESS ROAD/SEYAL£S3.36j� TOTAL AREA 70 BE CLEARED 118.98 I 1 • NO ADDAIONAL CLEARING PROPOSED WITH TI-IIS SDP UOD>F'CAT.'CN• t4 .-- FROM fliCIWA1 crP 9nn1_sQ_RQA /r\ I W W W W W W (!- W W W W W W A A '-\ \ ,O 1. k W W Ald •A • A l .. • ` ' A AMENDMENT PLANS FOR N ® SDP-2001-AR-694 ' 200' MIN. SETBACK FOR SINGLE FAMILY - STRUCTURES FROM GOLF COURSE PUD �X� i.'; L+ • BOUNDARY MP) - y y ► L' ,/VOTE SFWMD JURISDICTIONAL LINES HEREON AS SHOWN ON APPROVED ERP PLANS O ,O (PERMIT # 11-01682-P) S 0 100' 200' 400' SCALE 1" = 200' MODIFICATION \' AREAA _. ------- (SEE - (SEE SHEETS 6&7) SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY (EAST OF M.H.W,L,) DESCRIPTION WEST EAST TOTAL T TOTAL PROJECT BREAKDOWN(ALL PHASES) TOTAL SDP SITE AREA 91.23 AC 174.76 AC 265.99 AC 100% GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL PRESERVE(C.C.C.E.)) 37.29 AC 47.48 AC 84,77 AC 31.9% 1. THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS DOES NOT TOTAL RETAINED UPLAND (OUTSIDE C.E.) - 1,46 AC 1.46 AC 0.5% AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH TOTAL RETAINED WETLAND (OUTSIDE C.E.) 0.65 AC 5.43 AC 6.08 AC 2.3% ARE INCONSISTENT WITH EXISTING EASEMENTS OF RECORD, 2. EXOTIC VEGETATION AS DEFINED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND TOTAL PROJECT POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 53.29 AC 120.39 AC 173.68 AC 65.3% DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC), SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND SUBSEQUENT ANNUAL EXOTIC REMOVAL (IN PERPETUITY) SHALL BE THE GOLF COURSE PHASE BREAKDOWN RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. INITIAL EXOTIC REMOVAL TOTAL GOLF COURSE PHASE �� AC 166,51 AC !79,28 AC 100X SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE. AC 47,119AC 26.0% 3. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT OF ALL TOTAL PRESERVE(C.C.C.E)* 1.81 12.77 AC 45.30 DEAD LANDSCAPE MATERIAL AND FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE REQUIRED TOTAL RETAINED UPLAND (OUTSIDE C.C.CE.), - 1.46 AC 1,46 AC 0.8% IRRIGATION SYSTEM. TOTAL RETAINED WETLAND (OUTSIDE C.C.C.E.) 0.14 AC 5,43 AC 5.57 AC 3.1% 4. SEE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GOLF PLAY AREA/OTHER OPEN SPACE 9,78 AC 89.11 AC 98.89 AC 55.3%, REGARDING NATIVE TREES TO REMAIN AND/OR REVEGETATION OF NATIVE TOTAL PERVIOUS 11.73 AC 143.30 AC 153.03 AC 85.4% SPECIES, LAKES 0.95 AC 16.90 AO 17.85 AC 9.9% 5. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENTPORAOF ION FENCE THE APPLICANT SHALL CART PATHS/BOARDWALKS 0.09 AC 4.95 AC 5,04 AC 2.6X INSTALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCE(e.g. ENVIROFENCE)ALONG CONSTRUCTION ACCESS - 3.36 AC 3.36 AC 1.9% THE LIMITS OF CLEARING OF THE EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN ON TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 1,04 AC 25.21 AC 26,25 AC 14.6% SITE. THIS FENCE SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 6. ALL EXOTICS WITHIN THE FIRST 75 FEET OF THE OUTER EDGE OF 'SEE THE PRESERVE MANAGMENT PLAN (SHEET 12 OF 15)FOR A BREAKDOWN OF WETLAND/UPLAND/C.T.P. PRESERVE AREAS WITHIN THCONSERVATION EASEMENT. 0 EVERY PRESERVE SHALL BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED, OR THE TREE CUT DOWN TO GRADE AND THE STUMP TREATED WITH AN U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY APPROVED HERBICIDE AND A VISUAL TRACE DYE APPLIED. EXOTICS WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF THE PRESERVE MAY BE APPROVED TO BE TREATED IN PLACE, IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT PHYSICAL REMOVAL MIGHT CAUSE MORE DAMAGE TO E NATIVE VEGETATION IN THE PRESERVE. WHEN PROHIBITED EXOTIC ETADON IS REMOVED, BUT THE BASE OF THE VEGETATION REMAINS, BASE SHALL RE TREATED WITH AN U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL TECTION AGENCY APPROVED HERBICIDE AND A VISUAL TRACE DYE LL DE APPLIED. CKPILING OVER 6 FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE FENCED IN ACCORDANCE H COLLIER COUNTY REQUIREMENTS _ 1+OUIDTES MFRS MCO1t7 I I. 9r IH/S.twin HEHr `\ M171G17pN PARCEL (PER SFNMD PERMIT) C to \,,,\ 4 -.., SHEET 5 sNEET 5 5 • m - --•_0....7 .,. VTC ~�^�'.. -.MIR. � ;\�\\�IO ri , A;N. ,% -,....-...,-:f,....,..zer..,,,,,,,. •,• wu e II• : • ` ms' �` ,e '% nl attachment 919x638 pixels 01 d. Ke& & y kA,W)61`-fe Sports enthusiasts will also have plenty to cheer for, from Florida Everblades Hockey and arena football with championship-winning Florida Tarpons at nearby Germain Arena or Spring • Training baseball games with the Boston Red Sox and Minnesota Twins in Fort Myers in nearby Fort Myers. There's also great tennis, sport fishing, - power boat races and even the world famous 4ffk swamp buggy races on the "Mile of Mud"at Florida Southwest Florida is famed as"The Golf Capital of Sports Park. Of course, no sport may enjoy greater the World.' local significance than golf. With its prolific per capita composite of public and private holes, the region has been heralded as "The Golf Capital of • the World." Southwest Florida is home to some of the finest fairways on the planet and fortunately, quite a few can be found close to Kalea Bay. From the courses of Cypress Woods, Eagle Lake, Heritage Bay and Naples Beach Hotel to that of Tiburon at the Ritz Carlton Golf Resort, (home of the annual Franklin Templeton Shootout), Kalea Bay is positioned in the epicenter of a golfer's paradise. For all that's been referenced, bear in mind this is just a fraction of what can be found close to Kalea f ,:,..• . ;;, ., Bay. Families will appreciate the proximity to '` — "' schools, supermarkets, parks, churches, healthcare services and more. There's still much y more in outdoor activities, entertainment and , ,: rhprichPrl rnmmunity PvPntc that takes nlarp 11 i) Ill -�, m OZr►fi # M r : , -I m M 4 r �.. . � 4 `.... � { —fir �� , J 1 \s �% y� i .g r €, rt• { y ,jj, llt - ,. a L (\, $ # i tom. # • 0 f . LL N ximQH i �� i h� •. Ct,7 x) m O —1 { i '. , ,2 ' - 1 t . 0, > 44 4" I ,nj t ftX r il' s' .741 c �.. SI 4 x3 m Q H 4 41 r £ a t '111fl'i ' m (1) IPI:r4 Ili ' ':tiet 'ijittik ;1'.! ACt'*111111h„ i '‘'" 'PA, ,,- ' t fw SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RESPONSE: A quick check of activity on the District website (e-permitting) indicates a modification of the permit (11-01882-P) has occurred. I found application # 160119-22 which appears might have changed the wetland layout on the east side of Vanderbilt drive. I will refer you to that application for the details. There are new maps of the wetlands indicating which will go and which will stay. District staff work on a site by site schedule and the amount of project sites in Collier prohibit a site visit but, we have the site on the aerial inspection list and if staff sees anything besides what the District permit allows they will address the issues with the developer. 1 t- f Ft „Z. / On June 17, 201 5, Lodge Abbott extended his 2004 golf course permit and clear cut two large sections of land in the fall. I called Matt McLean's office in September and November and asked that the site be inspected for any violations of the permit. Both times his office responded that all clearing was allowed by the permit. On October 22, 201 5 Mark Strain, the Hearing Examiner, absolved Lodge Abbott from number 5 on the Settlement Agreement in which the developer agreed to pay $3 million to affordable housing. This decision was made by one man even though Items 20 and 21 of the Settlement Agreement state that this agreement "shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida" and that this agreement "can 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." I contend that item 21 was violated when Mark Strain absolved the developer of his $3 million payment. On April 1 6, 2016 I sent an email to County Commissioners, county attorney, county manager, county planning commissioners, Daryl Hughes and Matt McClean informing them that the golf course permit that the developer extended was a sham. There is no mention of a golf course in the amenities section of the Kalea Bay website and the Kalea Bay sales agent told my friend and me three times that they had no plans to build a golf course. On September 2. 2016 I met with Dwight Brock, clerk of courts, who verified that Case No. 05-967-CA was never recorded by Collier County or the developer. Jeffrey Klatzkow was the county attorney who signed the agreement in 2008 and he is still the county attorney. I think it must be illegal that the county didn't record the Settlement Agreement with the court, but I am clueless about legal matters. A colleague shared that he has sent several emails to Klatzkow asking him why it wasn't recorded and his response was that there is no need since neither the county nor the developer are accusing the other of violating terms of the agreement. What about citizens of Collier County who feel that terms are being violated? Much more of the land has been cleared during the past two months. It appears that all that is left is a fringe of trees around the border. Hundreds of cars are parked inside the gate so many workers are on site and it sounds like they may be building something. . . We can't put back the centuries old cypress trees that he cut down or restore the wetlands, but we can insist that the use of the land be limited to golf course or leave it alone to grow back. I want the 20th judicial court to help us see that the terms of the Settlement are upheld and it isn't even recorded there. Several Collier County golf courses not able to make a profit requested that they be allowed to change their zoning to residential. County Commissioners put a moratorium on those requests on April 12, 2016. County staff were directed to draft an amendment to facilitate golf course conversion to other uses. Right now the language of that amendment is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. We theorize the developer is going ahead and clearing the land getting it ready for residential development so that when the new LDC amendment is in place, he will automatically qualify to change zoning from golf course to residential. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmall.com 402 580-1545 Page 1 of 1 Subj: Paragraph 5.3 Date: 3/2/2015 1:51:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time From: rupnowdiane@gmail,com To: cps2004c glenedenonthelakes.us, dacressygmail.com, aellisonathome@aol.com, JudiPalav(a.aol.com In paragraph 8 of the Settlement agreement, it says, "if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reasons, then all of the GC Parcel including without limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those portions allowed for the two(2) residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the amended PUD Preserve Parcel." "Paragraph 5.3 of the amended PUD Preserve Parcel" is in "Section V Preserve District" The uses in the original settlement included: 1. Passive parks, passive recreational areas, boardwalks; 2. Biking, hiking and nature trails; 3. Golf cart paths are permitted in the preserve areas outside the limits of the bald eagle primary zone.;4. Wildlife sanitary.; 5. Pathways and or bridges.; 6. Recreational shelters, in preserve upland areas.; 7. Drainage and Water management facilities as my be required by SFWMD.; "Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Department Director determines to be compatible." So Paragraph 8 DOES say"shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity" to the above uses. The developer said at the MM meeting that the settlement said "open land"which means"vacant land". The developer or his attorney said the the settlement didn't use the term"perpetuity". it does. The developer said this land is not and was never intended to be"preserve" land. . . I think the language proves otherwise. . . IT SEEMS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT THE USES REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 8 ARE INCLUDED IN SECTION V, THE PRESERVES SECTION. His emphatic denial that his land is considered "preserve" land can be argued by the language in paragraph 8. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane( gmail.com 402 580-1545 Mnnrlav Marrh 07 ?MC ACCT Tnrli Palav --TR, 5 is -44\e_ fl e de ]ôp'Ter Terms of"2014 Amended and Restated Cocohatchee Bay PUD" 1. Deletes from end of paragraph 2, "The Agreement and Release expressly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control." 2. Deletes entire 5th paragraph, "Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable worforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment." 3. Modifies paragraph 6 to be consistent with the following, "The parties agree that certain sums of the previously provided$3 million have not yet been expended by the County to fund the Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements as contemplated in the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Parties agree that any such funds not yet expended by the County will be applied in the manner set forth in Section 6.7(3) of the 2014 Amended and Restated Cocohatchee Bay PUD." want to see details of this 4. Deletes entire 8th paragraph, "As each residential condominiuym building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth (1/5) of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reasons, then all of the GC Parcel including without limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those portions allowed for the two (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the amended PUD Preserve Parcel. Any revisions to these restrictive covenants will require a supermajority vote of the Board of County Commissioners." 5. Deletes entire 11th paragraph, "The maximum number of dwellings units to be constructed by Lodge shall not exceed 590 units. Of these, a maximum of 590 units may be multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However, two (2) units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as set forth in Section 4.4 in the amended PUD, attached hereto as Exhibit 2" 6. Deletes entire 12th paragraph, "What has been referred to as the R-1 and R- 2 Parcels shall be replaced by a singe R parcel as set forth in the revised PUD Master Plan, attached to the amended PUD. The development standards for the R Parcel are as set forth in Table 11 of Paragraph 3.5 of the amended PUD (except as may be expressly modified by the Agreement and Release). *"The allowable density and development standards are as set forth in the 2014 Amended and Restated Cocohatchee PUD" 7. All other provisions of the Settlement Agreement making reference to the Amended PUD and its content are amended to refer to the 2014 Amended and Restated Cocohatchee Bay PUD, the latter shall control. 8. Except as modified hereby, the Settlement Agreement remains to full force and effect. Retn: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 RIC PIE 826.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD RECORDED in the OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COMITY, PL COPIES 41.00 IJYEROFPICK 4TH FLOOR 06/10/2008 at 10:46AM DWIGHT B, BROCK, CLERK BIT 7240 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this N4‘day of ,t..,e__, , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC ("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle r4a a ei? _ I . and Zvi-- -- U T WHEREAS, the PUD ' •u-stion is also some ' $s, eferred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD; and titt,,, WHEREAS, Lodg: fil; . p 'ticen e )o ea i.. : T .entieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, F • - •. tor'atta k�-me + ty' . ' i•i ri concerning the proposed rn amendment to the PUD's Ba .t .. :le Management P1%4 t c e being styled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier Coun + Te,_OS 674� i• --.- Cis.-..- WHEREAS, on or around May 17-2-0-F5, Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Harris Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4)(c) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and ail claims Lodge had against the County;and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. 1 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2346 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and Release, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound, Lodge and the County mutually agree to the following: 1. The County and Lodge agree to adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as "Whereas clauses"by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. The settlement documents will consist of the original PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 (Exhibit I), the amended PUD (Exhibit 2), the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan for the amended PUD (attached as Exhibit "B" to the amended PUD), a phasing diagram entitled "Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Exhi t i d a Pathway Depiction (Exhibit 4). This Agreement and Release -x sly states the at eppetab e deviations in development standards from the original r a. bse air expres ` - in his • greement and Release,the original PUD will control. :5 ' 1 I( F...., 3. The settle •t sha?b nt :` t u . _ : site development plans ("SDPs") that Lodge has surbeing approved'! ,c9 ty, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Co .s lL.as__th-4 v.ment standards set forth in the original PUD and as may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282,AR5283 and AR5284. 4. The County will expedite the review of these three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. The existing environmental impact statement ("EIS") does not need to be amended unless the SDPs are revised to increase wetland impact beyond the impact currently permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five(5%)percent. 5. Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential 2 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2347 condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable workforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment. 6. Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, Lodge shall contribute the sum of$3 million to the County to fund Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements. No impact fee credits shall be given for payment of this sum. Lodge recognizes that the County may request additional contributions up to the proposed road impact fees due for 59 r it`to assist the County in funding the construction of the Vanderbilt P dge enhancem ts4'j o such additional contributions shall be required, however unt' o ty provid-s evi nc: that all parties have spent $5,500,000.00 on the Van•erb ran .. g: -• :f . An such sums paid over the initial $3 million shall re - ,:. i .a redi 4,g in this Agreement and Release, however, is intend:. -. or shall it restric i, . ci• the County's ability under applicable laws, ordinances or ru ,b 1, ' e fifty p-r F 0%) of all transportation impact rE CiVs- fees upon approval of the SDPs. These fun .S--s all be refunded to Lodge should Lodge be permanently prevented from commencing construction based upon actions by any governmental entity or any third party. County shall be entitled to retain these funds without any need for reimbursement upon the earlier of(1) Lodge's commencement of construction of the first tower, or(2) the exhaustion of time to file any third party challenge with respect to any matter concerned by this Agreement and the attachments hereto. 7. Lodge and the County agree that the Cocohatchee Bay PUD shall be exempted from the County's PUD sunsetting provisions within the LDC until the Effective 3 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth (115) of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or i{f ({}]�7�,+}'(�y+e, j ever discontinued or abandoned for any reason, then all of the G - ]iI ncluding wit�lh,t�t�tli itation the entire golf course development area, except f•r t •s4,parti_ alto :0 for the tw a (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green op-n s•ac- . '. ?I;I) • -le• 7t to he uses expressly allowed 1 in Paragraph 5.3 of the . • A. -. I I ' -e •- ',free • ,ire isions to these restrictive covenants will require a supe .. z 'ty vote of the B • Of' + y Commissioners. 9. To fully satisfy it ckli ion&.ta co t t idewalks along adjacent off-site 4TES public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway ten (10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006) in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2349 (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in Building Height, as defined in Paragraph 3.5 entitled "Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the amended PUD,and Footnote 2 thereto. 11. The maximum number of dwelling units to be constructed by Lodge shall not exceed 590 units. Of these, a maximum of 590 units may be multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However, two (2) units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as set forth in Section 4.4 in the amended PUD, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 12. What has been referre to� h,aye(}]1 d R-2 Parcels shall be replaced by a single R parcel as set forth in earsed PUD Maste ' $t),,, .ttached to the amended PUD. The development standards for he44rc'el are =•. t fort in able II of Paragraph 3.5 of the amended PUD (except. a 1Y le :, p e 1, E 4 i -a • Ay eement and Release). 13. If there are .•a h• c .1 _-s • Bil, a:l' anagement Plan required by federal or state agencies, • • her County PUb e d.+: t process shall be required. The County acknowledges that t ded.Bald • I4 . agement Plan is in compliance with the County regulations. Lodge shall e ex Cil,. ..---- from any County regulations that may be adopted in the future applicable to the Bald Eagle and the County shall defer to the state and federal regulatory permitting process relating to the Bald Eagle Management Plan and issues related thereto. Lodge, however, shall be required to notify the County of any such changes required by state or federal agencies, which will then require an administrative change by the County to any of the previously approved SDPs under review or that have been approved by the County. Any change to the construction sequencing shall be considered an insubstantial change to the SDP. 14. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit 2. 5 2/28/08 revision • OR: 4368 PG: 2350 15. Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its present and former elected or appointed officials and employees, insurers, sureties, agents, attorneys, and representatives of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord. No. 2000-88, the related Bald Eagle Management Plan or any amendment or proposed amendment to the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 or the Bald Eagle Management Plan through the date this Agreement and Release are approved and authorized by the Board for the Chairman's signa � n without limitation all Bert Harris Act iv claims and the claim assertedse No. 0505 ' release shall be immediately effective upon the County's a r of the-3 P 's in .cco dance with the terms and conditions set forth in para a. 3 0 's A e 1D t . • ' a e. e. 16. In the even • a t mid c . nge "`a t i r A y eement and Release, the of County and Lodge agree to cooperatively tostl t e•d Agreement and Release. In sers this regard, the County and Lodga each ski e parties to any such challenge FLE proceeding if one or the other of them is oed as a party in the first instance. The County and Lodge shall each bear their own costs and attorney's fees in any such proceeding. 17. If any third party challenge to this Agreement and Release should ever be successful, after exhaustion of all appeals or other requests for review or reconsideration or federal permit conditions prevent Lodge from being able to develop the project consistent with the amended PUD Master Plan then the County agrees to return all money provided by Lodge under this Agreement and Release upon sixty(60)days written notice from Lodge and to allow Lodge to retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. In addition, if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain 6 2/28/08 revision 011: 4368 PG: 2351 required federal permits for the SDPs as referenced in this document and is therefore unable to build this project (exclusive of any federal permits or approvals for docks), Lodge likewise will be entitled to a refund of all money provided under this Agreement and Release within sixty (60) days of written notice from Lodge and Lodge shall retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. 18. Nothing in this Agreement and Release or the settlement documents shall be construed or interpreted to confer any right to docks or any particular number of docks. 19. The Agreement and Release shall be binding upon Lodge's and the County's predecessors, successors, assigns, offi re d former employees, owners, present tN and former elected or appointea II insurers, prim .land representatives, who shall work together in good faith • ac oiiiiish tthe-inten . this A t4 ee ent and Release. 20. This Agrees en •. d ' •l • : 1�a _, -xe s b the laws of the State of Florida. C) -•.___ / .. t 21. This Agreem- •. d Release may b iART-n'-4 A my by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agre tbh . • Rel-. .e ..41\e -cuted with the same formalities \,. ; (ii as this Agreement and Release. This Agreemen and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. 22. The County and Lodge acknowledge that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision that my exist in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party either based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous language or that the language in question was intended to favor one party or the other. 7 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2352 23. The Effective Date of this Agreement and Release shall be the date upon which the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, executes this document. 24. The County and Lodge acknowledge and assume the risk that additional, different or contrary facts to the facts which they believe exist may now exist or may be discovered after this Agreement and Release has been entered into, and they agree that any such additional, different or contrary facts shall in no way limit, waive, affect or alter this Agreement and Release. The County affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the a r0- 4 t�zed by the PUD and this Agreement N and Release or the enforceabili . > s Agreement an. e. Lodge affirmatively states that it is not aware of an fa, s iat, otrld`�prolV lit the con traction of the project as authorized by the PUD d 1 e t �� 7 •r he enforceability of this Agreement and Release. f�. 25. In the event each of this Agr ` 6a elease, either party to this Agreement and Release may en &i .ermsr.in-t e j +(S tieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In this respect, the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REMAINING SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 8 2/28/08 revision OR; 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST:,: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHt'E,OROCK, CLERK COLLIER CO TY, F ORIDA • By: / _.. afithafif By: 1% tedillabbas A K'tp ch1. !-puty lerk TOM HENNING,CHAIRM signature Dari, WIT t S ES; " LI 3 � Signed Name 4 1G/in/Oh Ae0e4Phic Print-s Name Si ai/4 Name BOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC \ 4. �41.J Atli ITS: Printed Name Ape oved as to form r and e1P 41114 C't A .4 13e i A. KI ow 0 Coin y Atto -y 9 2/28/08 revision RECEIVED- JUL 3 2017 To: (;)/) Jill/ :/�A11�? /" A),../)/ f i j By: From: Donna Reed Caron Date: July 2, 2017 Re: Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement and PUD 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 I �{ c--t` 239-514-2780 /� 239-280-6857 / RECETVED- APR 2 0 2017 By: My name is Diane Rupnow and I live in the Glen Eden Communi Y. In 2000 the Cocohatchee Bay PUD was approved. That PUD contained a development standards chart and footnote that our attorney attached to his February 7th letter to YOU and I gave to commissioners again last Tuesday. Carl Stenddahl just read the footnote a few minutes ago. What was NOT in the PUD was an explanation of how that footnote could and would be interpreted by County staff. It appears that the County is misinterpreting the footnote to allow this developer to get away with drastically reducing separation between buildings. At the February 25, 2008 meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, Commissioner Caron said, "It absolutely defies credulity on the part of both staff and the petitioner that that asterisk in the development standards table means that 251-foot buildings can essentially be built with zero lot lines." My sentiments exactly! Question: Are ALL developers privy to this slight of hand to get their buildings closer together or is this interpretation of this footnote reserved for those with special privilege? IF this footnote has been used in Collier County at least once before so a precedent IS in place, then I think the question becomes, were good planning standards used then to arrive at that decision? This footnote caused big controversy at the January 11 , 2008 Planning Commission meeting where several commissioners argued that this was not GOOD PLANNING. Our County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow referred to its interpretation as absurd and said, "The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time." Regarding the inclusion of the chart and footnote on the PUD approved in 2000, I have this to say. . . If the Planning Commissioner with a degree in Planning and Architecture has to get out a scale to determine that the building separations in the drawings did not meet the minimum required distances, then Rich Yovanovich's argument that these dimensions were clearly shown to neighbors during the PUD review process does not ring true. I contend that building separations of 153' 126'; 127'; and 341 ' were sneakily included and approved in the SDPs in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement On the County Commissioners' website, it lists your "Guiding Principles" or values. The first two are similar—"Honesty and Integrity". Since those traits are important to you I submit the only depiction of the completed Kalea Bay project to be found on their website. It shows potential condo buyers and neighbors of Kalea Bay 5 tall skinny towers about as far apart as they are tall. This depiction is a lie. In reality those towers will be TALLER, WIIDER, and MUCH CLOSER TOGETHER. We incorporated the accurate dimensions of the proposed Kalea Bay project and came up with this more realistic depiction showing towers 310' wide and 200' tall with currently proposed distances of 109'; 165'; 100' and 100' between the 5 buildings. So, this is a more truthful depiction of what the completed Kalea Bay project would look like. You can see the impact this massive wall of towers has on the skyline, shading the road and surrounding neighborhoods, blocking access to light and views. While researching this issue, I have been given an answer that was not truthful and had roadblocks set up by County staff. If there is nothing to hide, then truth and transparency should be granted to citizens like me seeking answers to valid questions. These decisions by administrative planning staff without BCC approval VIOLATED the public trust, violated the Settlement Agreement and should be investigated and discussed in a public forum. The final "Guiding Principle" or Value listed on your website is "SELF CORRECTING". I take that to mean that you want to make the best decisions possible for your constituents, the citizens of Collier County, so IF it is perceived that a mistake has been made, you are willing to investigate and reevaluate a decision and make "right a wrong." We hope you do. Thank you! Diane Rupnow rupnowdi nmail.com 402 580-1545 , .),'. : 41 4 ,4. , * . :4:., * ';'' ' '2—.1 .. ' j Ilk t ' [t/ kk 0\ • ,' III (--1 , , r, ti. ' 1 ti ZD , i. F..1 1)m0-4 A m 3r f, !;,:.,:a1/4N4 \ /*\j ( ) 4 , 3/40;1, : i • 4 + ,' f , I I s C fp*k, o r. J l RN1 . c( ' I N Att.' taPt U\ 7� id, Y s it , O , d % " r ` if if .' A 0m 0H M- i.-Im `# >i' r Vi -i t{ • ght 4 ki (11 mm*0-I 4° '''''\. t'llito./::. *. . . ' *It i 1 4� ! i 1 J 1C) n coi. \ '-'' , .. ,1,.„4., 1, : , I i. ti,, : . ' ' '° N 3 a CD C CD ® Al 0 -{ m a N O. f o CCD . -1 m a p CD 1 ° 5. 3 r. a 0- .... a N -c?; 1 -I 7. rk a 0 11a a-C F .. i,_. .. . rn v. ,_, .. , ...- ...• (� N I 0 N lirO W •46' !1� -111::::.. N If V O 17O D A N T ''''' (1-)c) tn 5' NV' II 1 OD 4a aTa A a N, a 0) .-• w . .. ,A 1'I F___, O # ' 1 o I (i ae If. f-, t ' ' s f A 1 'fl 1 i k .D A q i i,, (V .,. 4:'3.0,, =. . ; \� , \ 2 . k ƒ § 0. 2,..\\,......:........_ to ,c_." E. l \ I U71 i P F ,... fk \� �( _ \© } „..... --- I'1 \I _p Iiiii: i-•- II e , yl . • 2 ƒ) ' + , . \ II _.... ] „..;--..., ,....,.: , . ..:,..,.., .. . ° ,.... ,, § .8 \ , . } a > X . , . ` «\ » /' } - d ! � | P. \ k i ! \ o 9 # f\ ; i v } }\ <. \} \ \ _ � . 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 gas £9ct, , 9'9 q476i4-Nti, 1/4":1A APR 3 2017 AAA/ 6rne4111-440-0-iteA,14-4, - •� /d aur44,e- ,a, .c !or' 190td-i 44=4'radt,e ie441-Z14- mad A 241A, BGG ttz2 * ,tre, 6i2144- pill ,14- 4-45ilve e/U`c, /4 _ , . i Axil Ad4 tile, • zynetia, k1.40-<0. / 4118- /146i64*- ' C' 1-)14(4t0r11-d/ U/& et641-r Atial , co-nan.,2,4.- ,/,,, / O de /da • , 4„-dz ,44-eade-t- 64Attd-- , , It I C4944444-ph, -114 ti 97-10-ve- CLuAL I I d4 A"'6`114)4t c&J-ivt a'Rotf/A4 / - t/41,0v77 ./"7-1 dt-e .0141te-d / -tiAtl 66 ;-tAilajt- r-t-t () a4d4:iCion7nuLu htitkWhiliti /t44frit'4"'a4ed ft- fecictipc. f-s- ,40-rede4c, RALF BROOKES, ATTORNEY Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Lazy February 7,2017 Collier County do Collier County Attorney In Re: Cocohatchee Bav/Kalea Bay Development Issues Dear Collier County I represent a number of adjacent property owners and residents who have the following objections and concerns regarding the above referenced development: 1. The setback between the first building and proposed second building at Kalea Bay does not meet the minimum building setback of 1/2 the buildings sum height(i.e.,the total building heights when added together)which is at least 200' See,Table 3.5 in 4368 OR.Book p .2375,and 4368 OR.Book pp.2415-2416,and instead would provide less than 100 ft. in building separation. a. An administrative deviation should not be used to drastically and substantially reduce the setback between buildings by more than 100' and more than 1/2 the required setback. b. It is unreasonable to grant an administrative deviation of more than 100 feet and more than '/2 the required setback without another public hearing to provide an opportunity for adjoining and nearby property owners to be heard regarding this substantial deviation. c. The similar architectural design of the 2 buildings does not alleviate the reduction the views by over 100' through the buildings that would impact the view of adjoining and neighboring residents(sometime colloquially referred to as the"condo canyons"effect). d. The calculation of building height sum for the setback is even greater than 400'because there is a habitable dwelling unit located on 2nd Floor Garage(See,Building Permit Plans depicting MANAGER's QUARTERS on the 2id Floor Garage). This garage floor containing the managers dwelling unit should have been included in the building height calculation for the purposes of calculating building height sum for building setbacks,-or the manager's quarters should be removed from the building plans. 2. We are also concerned that the developer not miss,and that the County monitor and be aware of, the rapidly approaching,upcoming requirements contained in the Settlement Agreement: a. Of particular concern is the approaching deadline required by paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement for recording Restrictive Covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of the golf course parcel before or at the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the 1'`bldg. Kalea Bay Tower 1,which is approaching Certificate of Occupancy in mid-2017 b. Similarly,Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement requires a 10-ft sidewalk be completed before,at or upon C.O. in 2017. We are referring these objections to the County for review and any necessary actions. Best regards, /s/Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral,Fl 33904 Phone(239)910-5464;fax(866)341-6086 Ralfl3rookes@gmail.com Attachments Each building is 200+' Sum of Building Height=400+' Building Setback is 200+' See OR Book 4368 Page 2375 and 2415(attached) s Ct ::CA LA a /:. ••' L a1 L C 4 O 13 00 0 3 cv‘ ..fzi .2f . 1 pp Q M- 3j oN QCa v CU 12, u cl.. ‘1")* —1 = tn4-0c 2 a `° U N C Y 3 4' lg a G) - •Tr."-71 M L +- 411 -ts vl co ..-, u E t ', c 4 "i c a, +-1 Oh d co L CO + V (Y� V) C id o a CO ' C P T tea L O o .r E o �§ L N C J .ZT . \04.) A113 i' W 3 OR: 4368 PG: 2375 COCOHATCHSB BAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR }� p��� �}�. • TABLE I D ELOPMEN�STANDARDS "It!~ R2 RIGH-RISE MULTI-FAMILY Matti-Family Darnley 1Hlaimnm Let Area N/A 1 Aae _. Minimum Lot Width N/A WA Freed Yard-Internal Road •r , 03 BH not las 03 BH not las than 2S feet than 25 fen Arse Yard-Accessary Bhlg. / 0.5 BH not less 0.5 BH oot lest lade Parkins Structu a than 25 feet than 25 feet Rant Yard-Vanderbilt Drive BH WA Fried Yard-Aeaorry Bldg, SO 1 WA Side Yard 03 BH 15 • { Rear Yard 0.5 BH 15 Rear Yard Aeeewory`/��NICY• ' V( S __y 10 lhsd �nBldg He d j 20 •. - 35 1 /L' height. ..•f_ s2 Distance Between - -I 'r''''-'7 ._ . 0.3 SB •3 03 BH not leu lbw 15 feet P Flier Area ltb.. 1 .i 1200 SF ad (5 U } l akdiem=g 14 Shalt be the verticadiem= b habitable tautest floor armies to din uppn+o+rcel isg ekvation o $ (Seat d la)dbra Howdy *of two adjecant baddirs j •• ddasesoiag masa moveimmsts Al d.waracs are i fat eats atkerwie soma\T:.j i.' C tI�/ •I Feet yards a ))be sewed r follows: `=l A. If tete moat is served by a public right•of-way.setback Is aware est hon dee adjacentsight-of-way lie. B. If die pros.Is amid by a private toed.sorbs&is atresmed from the beds daub(if curbed)or editor pavvw of the carted). '2 $wilding be for the sou*papery flee adjacent to Arbor Tsars ie the'RI"sect shall be IS stories fora maximum height of ISO feet. *3Wh er,the masksi a comma aaaitacaral thecae ate angled.stewed ar offset frac are mother.aad weds sty teat pends.tr one be_Aniei tadve y:pieced. . 1 3.3 .../.. - . OR: 4368 PC. 2415 r 4 i , • 2. Reaeatiooal uses such as, but not limited to, clubhouse, fitness ceases., health spa,tillage courts,swimming pools or similar recreational uses. 3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in natme with the foregoing uses and which the Pluming Services Department Director determines to • be compatible in the 3C:44.1=-124141:17 Districts. • • 3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1 A. Table I a sots forth the development stades* for land uses within the "R" , Residentiel Districts. B. Standards for plating, landscaping, sips and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD,are to be in accordance with Collier County Land Developnent Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated,required yards, heights,aid floor area standards apply to principal structures. 'R C. C. Off-street • ;. 1 • ;io • • • ,. , . - shill be accessed by perking aisles or dri4,1M -1. are separate • • • , • • which serve more than one development. ww-- spice area of not .- ten feet (10) in width as measured • ., . -;1 -,_ -.•t_ • . +.;. -I - .- •I t sepKate any patios aide •or • • . iirl.._ 41404 )1611116+7 . . -. 011141P.41064111111,010~1110111Iiii . • . 11144 -..riiii.. Tamar 1 . i• ONIUmiliall.1110.1111100/4punifirar . lir 1 •• • Taga '''11S6.1 's . " ' .I AV liar : ' . ' ' ' • ''s ' ' " ' MEM - mow p i 4 I I - DEVILOPMDTT STANDARDS MP maw =Mat ; inGe-ang 1110.111M111.131 ziag fOlIer Meld-Fri,Direllhapro i11111111aa i alliam. Let Ares WA 44iare lAsm lillima Let WU* WA WA kVA Mae Toed-Mena Reed at 031)1 not less 0.1 Alipeselese 1 ajlaaajoL _ *ea 23 feet _ dowdrodeet doe 25 jot ", Wrest Yard-Ammar 7 BUS- 0.5 BH=am 411.11ilaselese (algimies. bduillimairlDBLIPIniclars dma 25 kee ilmwaidese Amato heat Yard-Vamderbit Drive BH WA tvA host Yard-Acesswirry Bldg. 50 ' WA Si , ,Ade Yard 46 0.5 1311 1 , liMmosal•MILLMMEMEN•1 Rear Yard Madrid 033)1 15 . law Turd ACCIIIIWI 40 lit 3.2 (— 2/28/08 revision ...... _ _ _ OR: 4368 PG: 2416 -. Mg Rabic " m suds for a.ssatss Si 31 A hi*43013 fit 'Mum NW=Pricked cked lie.t4...s as sail a4111114okesi as jaimikar ilmoisrfi.1 lia23seat . now Aees life. (reit) INC,SF 4200411 =ALM 111:(itis k iMldss Mitt ail be tie veaid&New.sseted foe abs ear Obibtlls IOW Sear dsvides ee Os sppsrsst ertiabed ate*tiwrlee of re aspen I Mai: (Stas of Wilt Adehgalk isad MI* d tiro agleamWags iceit pstspeus of daieriits slim* ! i Al diele.an we is fret miss albmri.e saved •1 Rem pude Ai be msssd s Bows: A. Mlle paned IS cered by a public rir 1 o(wsy.Mock is e.ssstsd foe the edjenet>3glt-sAvy Boa. I. NAB prod is wrwd by a privies sad.astber>ti is aromed bas Os beef of asrb(Y cubed)or d/e of p.vsest(if not embed). '2 Renins f bsi/Ec tit Itis serf peopsety lies ebsast to Artier Thee is the It+"evict IMO be jj 44 mods ice a s.odsees Willi el in 140 het *3 wrbne baileewwb a aoseo. R C• r. cast fee see Rawi Rawer.wed veils cot or mai toea..eber.Ibesebeebs- - r- ' r / )..to.--.., ----: . . r j o_ r•-:1-'E-C.e .° ir ,0 : T, (:). „ TiiE C IRL _____ 3.3 ' 1128/06 revision 2 R j ! I .1 , !11 , _ !, 1 1 . ' vcaou 5dveiat b!t5, .Y N a Iitt3l I ] at l s 11 10 # hill 1= t SWt11NIWOdNO� V �—2� ! ii.isO aN : ;il;: : #.:, id ,:; s=,,.s 1 €Ih�, , Avg V31Y)I { . i ! I { y k. -- ® '������. ='=-_ = /fi , , • r; r�a�j t .+-� ,. , ® re, .f, „{' >J IIIE; J &_ -_ _ _.__ T�� 'ter ' 3 to f:III , ---� - � ~— 0 { ® `���� Zop ;;/„hili,, 1D. I' , ,r 4::\ ,i , J� T f--- II �� I I E fl j • .-� 1 t - o ` B © jY- .® %//////don, %///////. r --' to cr, Y • 0 i v► i f i i .0 rzz/ ,e„ 6,..-,SevticAvireil t:i'...-E--?.. '_ L.,,,,,„„., ,„,,,,,, [. _ , .. i , --MN _ j --11- ) `C U �� Leta: 4176441 OR: 4368 PG: 2345 » rik 124.01 CLIVI TO TDI MUD UCO.DID in tie OFFICIAL IICO1DI of COLLIJD camT, FL COFIII 17.01 'MIMICS 4TI FLOOI Si/II/2115 at 10:4611 D$I®T I. URI, CLIDI UT 1241 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this"k{l‘day of L,r,e._., , 2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle i ;,;. •- and WHEREAS, the PUD it•/ on is also som s. eferred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD;and /7 'Ir...--_,,, \------ 1 WHEREAS, Lodg4 fil_. . •• tinn o -'. o :•:%1•74e T entieth Judicial Circuit in 4i•Aal '1 .and for Collier County, . atta_ ' e -• ty'–•v i iim concerning the proposed amendment to the PUD's BI1? le Management P1 tale being styled Lodge Abbott / Associates. LLC v. Collier Coun (71440.3:15_,96 .7-E4)e\` �€ CIR WHEREAS, on or around May 1, 2 , Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Bert Harris Act"),Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.;and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4Xc) of the Bert Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County;and WHEREAS, this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the regulations at issue. ----_.— I 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2348 Date of this Settlement Agreement. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions in the LDC shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. " As each residential condominium building receives the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy,Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth(1/5)of what is known as the GC Parcel, and when all five covenants are recorded, they will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses )(.7 described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 3. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or • a ; ; T ever discontinued or abandoned for • A? any reason, then all of the r 'rt including wi I i t • itation the entire golf course development area, except fi tl •. ,o , :1 • •A for tit. tw (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green opn �•0y +�t .1�.T to uses expressly allowed in Para h 5.3 of the .'411-.0 s ' e. • isions to these restrictive covenants will require a sup : 'ty vote of the B "`t ,f Commissioners. 't_( ti 9. To fully satisfy i you!• •+ • :� • idewalks along adjacent off-site -1TE public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway en (10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006)in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The pathway is depicted in Exhibit 4. This construction of the pathway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall be completed upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached as Exhibit B to the amended PUD shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen 4 2/28/08 revision OR: 4368 PG: 2353 ATTEST:‘;'; , BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGIc•E, ROCK ,CL=ERK COLLIER C 6 TY,F ORIDA r AR By:�I !. , Ir/l_, By: _ 1 i i � U tO Chi 1. I ••uty lerk TOM I G,C • I' • Signature cm tit,.. WI SES;A j _iiii2._ 04v7- Signed Name 4);CdtiVrA 7- At0e4WYck Print:. Name I42......4-''.."- - Si_,i {.s a :Name ' h :BOTT ASSOCIATES,LLC 4u • Mt J .2ini)0 (". 4.0V40/ -d` j ITS: i t ,.- c Printed Name / / /1 {:- -\-------J---, 1 1 \---'T -- Ap• •ved as to form ( ��T(r t j ,77 1 ander, • ." • 1;,1i� ��jlJ� r� ,j, L ? ' N,, ..,..3, � -.if 1114 ..'j Je • ., A. KI �A,ow ,�� `1'v Co Atto j•y /‹ (`' i \((?1 �J% \•!/fE C i� 9 2/28/08 revision GoodnerAngela From: Kmggal <kmggal@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday,July 11, 2017 12:08 PM To: SolisAndy; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDaniel Bill Cc: kmggal@aol.com Subject: Kales Bay issues I have been on vacation with my family but thought it important to get to the commissioner meeting today and have my say. I was scheduled on Spirit Airline flight 943 from Atlantic City NJ (ACY) to Fort Myers (RSW) on July 10th, 2017. I was at the airport and it was delayed again and again. We finally got on the plane around 8:00 p.m. We were then asked to deplane because the flight was cancelled. (There were no available flights today to get me there in time.) The main criteria I used when buying my home in Naples was that I wanted to be West of Rt. 41 and have a southwest view of the beautiful Naples sunsets. It looks to me I will lose my view of the beautiful Naples sunsets if the Kalea Bay buildings are approved with major changes proposed disregarding the PUD Agreement entered into in 2008, and without any knowledge of or any input from the surrounding communities or I believe the Collier County Commissioners. I feel this developer makes agreements with communities without ever thinking they will have to keep their part of the bargain. The PUD Agreement entered into in 2008 gave this developer well over$30 million worth of extra units of condos in exchange for leaving the property adjacent to me as a golf course or preserve in perpetuity. Then in 2014 they tried to have this PUD agreement opened up to build houses on this property. They already got several extra floors and added condo units that they would be selling each for millions of dollars and were trying to renege on their end of the deal. Now they want to build a wall of concrete blocking my view by building these high rise buildings 50 feet wider and many feet closer together which is the equivalent of the size of adding a another high rise building. The PUD Agreement entered into in 2008 did not account for any of these changes and the surrounding communities were never informed. I also believe the commissioners were not made aware of any of these changes. I am asking each of you to please take into consideration what we have given up to this developer and what he has promised and seems not to keep his end of the bargain. Kathleen Gallagher 849 Carrick Bend Cir. #201 Naples, Fl 34110 1 GoodnerAngela From: Danielle Carry <danielle.carry@stuartbuildingproducts.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:49 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny;williammcdanialjr@colliergov.net; FilsonSue Cc: Stacy mower Subject: Kalea Bay Tower Project Importance: High July 11, 2017 Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 RE: Kalea Bay Project To the Collier County Board of Commissioners', My name is Stacy Mower-Upperman and I am writing in respect to The Kalea Bay Project. I have just learned that there is opposition to the future Towers at Kalea. It would be a terrible mistake to discontinue this project. Between the jobs that have been created and the unparalleled product that has been produced,the value it will bring Naples and the surrounding areas is incomparable. We have visitors and home buyers from all over the world looking at our city now and they are looking to not only purchase a home or second home, but everything that the Kalea Bay project entails. Stuart Building Products, LLC supplied all the rebar and building materials to Tower One. My company is dependent on projects like this one to take care of our families and staff. Hundreds of people depend on projects like this,one that is capable of securing wages for several years and increasing revenue throughout the city. I urge you to consider all that will be effected by your decisions and allow the project to continue. Respectfully, Stacy Mower-Upperman Stuart Building Products, LLC Best Regards, Danielle Carry Stuart Building Products 1341 NW 15th Street Pompano Beach, FL 33069 954-978-8900 office 954-978-8925 fax 1 GoodnerAngela 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, CONCRETE & MASONRY INC. Karen Laureano 6301 Shirley Street Naples, FL 34109 239.566.1661 Ext. 216 239.254.8515 Fax klaureanoallenconcrete.com www.allenconcrete.com 1 de/kW 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. theremaining We are under notice that there iso opposition to the completion of ema PP Pg 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 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, Chris Allen Cc: Bill McDaniel Penny Taylor Burt Saunders Donna Fiala Andy Solis • Allen Page 2 of 2 GoodnerAngela 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. .lI ram.* 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 DonnaFiala©colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders©colliergov.net PennyTaylor©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. Sincer y, Signature nn Print Name 2 76 7Y Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunderscolliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDanielAcolliergov.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 TN). )Lc - 1N----- Signature Print Name 510 oTk.Th 5fi ; Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaundersAcolliergov.net PennvTaylorc 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, Signature Print Name z78/ '_� �`� - '� Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala aAcolliergov.net AndySolisa,colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor(p�colliergov.net BillMcDanielAcolliergov.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, Ito J Orr Signaf e Print Name 1(56 7- PSP CA, Address (P Jt; SPK-/P69PL Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolisAcolliergov.net BurtSaunders( colliergov.net PennyTaylor(a 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, 61,,, ,,,,,---,L (& ,t- z. Signature(;/-11 / ( at!1 efc;c /(-c /, erii C&41 Print Name ( 76( </SAS 54v-c-e rt Address /1y/mss Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliemov.net AndySolis@collieraov.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. Sincerely, Lt IZcikm("j1— Signature Print Name Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialana colliergov.net AndySoliscolliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor(c�colliergov.net BillMcDaniel(p�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, Ihonas 1-de5- Signature 71441Y/a9 /-7k/e5" Print Name Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov.net AndySolis(c colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor( colliergov.net BillMcDanielAcolliergov.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. in ft l y AaidulidtgiAAI Signat re kit) FikAS Chia y U-71-6 Print Name 2081 kLA,v \\1 k'i Ala Address e0(71 ;. ek_ ' rwk p ., SSI I s H Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov.net AndvSoliscolliergov.net BurtSaunders a(7,colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDaniel@c011iergov.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, Signat e i Icc�,�a5 Print Name t3oy 41lervt. ���Q (+ i r Address l eLvt 4er e S I `33 e:3 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 PennyTaylorcolliergov.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, Signature n.e,c1,1 Print Name )0 51- Address Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis a(�colliergov.net BurtSaunderscolliergov.net PennyTaylorCa�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. Sin - -ly, illC)11-•,,,-)W Sign- re Print Name fl I M w. Av E Address )9LO� --5 ) 4 -1(4r Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolis a(�colliergov.net BurtSaunderscolliergov.net PennyTaylor agcolliergov.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. Sincere ifississ ...- Signature Signature Print Name 40 30 -P A / 517 Address ,100 I C' I rr f' -i/Zt Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaCc�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�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. SinA0311r —� ii:nature �— tek Print Name /D 30 Address S -; rc r 3/35 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net AndySolis(a�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. Sincerely, Signature c c- Qr. A. C Print Name /0 e 7 {—��- t J �rrc,c e Zr- Address Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFiala©colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BillMcDanielAcolliergov.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, &,\? 1-0 tcyftt),41 , Si. - -i 1 .4 ,4;VI A► 'fie 2-6) 2,"-i * J SQJ ifess fL. Z4/( Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialagr�colliergov.net AndySolisCc�colliergov.net BurtSaunders@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 A iv • n.. ure I r i • ---1-51-0SbC ) Prin 1 ame 43 6 five. 5-1f, Addres� 1tt-- �,„ y4_ //� Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaCa�colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunderscolliergov.net Pen nyTaylor(a�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. Si cerely, i natr e Anic)6\ Print Name Ltdy+cAres trt;4__ 3 `� , Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialaAcolliergov.net AndySolisc colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a,colliergov.net PennyTaylorAcolliergov.net BilIMcDanielAcolliergov.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 !. Please stand firr against the opposition who are do not want this project built. ,'•e)•ely, 0 N 0 it0 , i •Ic z>/ t-b naturen 4A1, Ne le 74 .40 r Tint Name /9A 4dres /Z41 el(--" /A1/1(rd 7i1 ()Ilk' 41JJZ Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolis(a�colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylorcolliergov.net BillMcDaniel c(Dcolliergov.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, // f ✓ t4,/ P. JJ/ `/i � r../ Signature (re) 711-2_p 'Z✓l Zofc"Z� Print Name 1/413 v w1J-}srLe Cot! cls Z Z Address it/gP) 6s Fr-D 3JJ/J3 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 PennyTaylorQcolliergov.net BillMcDanielCcr�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, / rhir Signature Pedro Mc)4c Iv o Print Name tbIok c)ccvay 1-101\ou L. Vn Address 1Jc (( tC �j(if) i Y\c,5 �-L- Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net BurtSaunders(a�col liergov.net PennyTaylorCa�col liergov•net BilIMcDanielCc�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,., r Sig► •re V 12-1" ii- ( \� 0 � �` \ V 1 Print Name �! `' C 5 1,Q..� 2.� A dr s OfTLEI � , ' 31i / 6 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 DonnaFialacolliergov.net AndySolis(c�colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net PennyTaylor(a�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, Signature `5f-C ( Print Name / 1 c ar Address GoodnerAngela From: Frank Halas <fhalas@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday,July 9, 2017 8:11 AM To: SolisAndy Subject: Petit Letter. Attachments: 2007 9_21 Att. Letter Bldg Separation.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow Up Flag Status: Flagged COMMISSIONER SOL/S, / WASC�/VEN THIS LETTER WRITTEN BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY MIKE PETT/T, BEFORE HE LEFT FOR PRIVATE PRACTICE. DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2007! THIS COULD BE THE "SMOKING'L UN" THAT THE SETBACKS AND DISTANCES BL WEEN BUILDING'S WERE TO BE ADDRESSED BY COUNTY STAFF AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO CLOSING' THIS LAWSUIT! / WAS LEAD TO BELIEVE THIS ALL WAS BE/n/Ci TAKEN CARE OF BY STAFF AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PRIOR TO THE APRIL 2z 23, 2008 SCC MEET/NC,. FRANK HALAS From: Brad Schiffer AIA [mailto:brad@TAXIS-usa.com] Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2017 1:33 PM To: FHalas@comcast.net Subject: Petit Letter. As discussed. Brad Schiffer AIA 239.254.0285 0 Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 • `pt LIF • .` • COLLIER COUNTY DAVID C.WEIGEL O[1 y� COWER COUNTY ATTORNEY 3301 East Tamiami Trail,8s'Floor Heidi F.Ashton Naples,FL 34112 Jennifer A.Belpedio Telephone: (239)774-8400 Ellen T.Chadwell Facsimile: (239)774-0225 Colleen M.Greene email: davidweigeI@colliergov-net Jacqueline Williams Hubbard Jeffrey A.Klatzkow William E.Mountford Thomas C.Palmer Michael W.Pettit September 21,2007 Marjorie M.Student-Stirling Scott R.Teach Via email mcooper@;ones-foster.com,rvovanovich@ncilaw.com Jeff E.Wright and regular U.S.mail Robert N.Zachary Margaret Cooper,Esq. Richard Yovanovich,Esq. JONES,FOSTER,JOHNSTON&STUBBS,P.A. Goodlette,Coleman&Johnson,P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive,Suite 1100 4001 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 300 West Palm Beach,FL 33401-5950 Naples,FL 34103 RE: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Settlement Agreement Dear Margaret and Rich: As you both know, there have been multiple iterations of the proposed settlement documents with multiple changes since the document I transmitted on January 4, 2007 that is attached to Margaret's September 13, 2007 letter. Given this history,which can be documented,I reject the analysis offered by Margaret in her September 13,2007 letter. With that said, I am enclosing the most recent underlined and strikethrough version of the proposed settlement documents based upon my discussions with Rich last week. In my opinion, the Board needs to consider and expressly approve the changed term your client is now requesting insofar as the effective date of the release. In addition,the Board needs to be told that the building separation issue still exists based upon the PUD and the SDPs. The mere striking of references to the building separation issue from the settlement documents does not make it go away. As you know, the Board has also requested that the Planning Commission look at the settlement documents and, based upon your client's request for a continuance of the proceeding before the Planning Commission, it is my understanding that will occur in November. As we have discussed,I am leaving the County Attorney Office to enter private practice. In the future,this matter will be handled by David Weigel and Marjorie Student-Stirling. I strongly recommend that you, Rich, meet with David and Marjorie as well as Planning staff as soon as possible and review this most recent set of settlement documents with specific attention to the building separation and the release issues. Very truly yours, Michael W.Pettit Chief Assistant County Attorney MWP/nfb enclosure cc: David C.Weigel,County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling,Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt,Administrator,Community Development and Environmental Services Susan Istenes,Director,Zoning and Land Development Review 06-cmd-00024/1295 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this day of , 2007 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida(the"County")and Lodge Abbott Associates,LLC("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the PUD in question is also sometimes referred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD; and WHEREAS, Lodge filed a petition for certiorari in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida to attack the County's decision concerning the proposed amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle Management Plan,that case being styled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier County,Case No. 05-967-CA; and WHEREAS, on or around May 1,2006, Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act("Harris Act"), Section 70.001 et seq.,Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4)(c) of the Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims Lodge had against the County; and WHEREAS, the settlement offer and this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the County's Land Development Code ("LDC") and Growth Management 1 I I Plan ("GMP") by, among other things, providing for certain environmental enhancements to protect bald eagles on Lodge's PUD property; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and Release, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound,Lodge and the County mutually agree to the following: 1. The County and Lodge agree to adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as'Whereas clauses"by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. The settlement documents will consist of the original PUD Ord. No. 2000-88, the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan for that PUD, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement and Release as Exhibit 1, and this Agreement and Release which expressly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release,the original PUD will control. 3. The settlement shall be contingent upon three site development plans ("SDPs") that Lodge has submitted being approved by the County, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County as well as the development standards set forth in the original PUD and as may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. In accordance with paragraph 17 of this Agreement and Release, however, the parties also agree that a rejection of any of these SDPs relating in any way to docks shall not fall within the contingency stated in this paragraph and shall in no way alter the binding nature of this Agreement and Release. These three SDPs are referred to as AR5282,AR5283 and AR5284. 4. The County will expedite the review of the SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge or any subsequent purchasers of the property. The existing environmental impact statement ("EIS") does not need to be amended unless the SDPs are 2 11 • substantially amended. In this instance, a substantial amendment shall mean any increase in wetland impacts beyond the impact permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five(5%)percent. 5. Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable workforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment. 6. Within fifteen (15) days of the approval of the latter of the three SDPs, Lodge shall contribute the sum of $3 million to the County to fund Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements. No impact fee credits shall be given for payment of this sum. Lodge recognizes that the County may request additional contributions up to the proposed road impact fees due for 590 dwelling units to assist the County in funding the construction of the Vanderbilt Drive Bridge enhancements. No such additional contributions shall be required, however, until the County provides evidence that all parties have spent $5,500,000.00 on the Vanderbilt Drive Bridge enhancements. Any such sums paid over the initial $3 million shall receive road impact fee credits. Nothing in this Agreement and Release, however,is intended to nor shall it restrict in any way the County's ability under applicable laws, ordinances or rules to r uire sere fifty percent (50%) of all transportation impact fees upon approval of the SDPs. 7. Lodge and the County agree that the Cocohatchee Bay PUD shall be exempted from the County's PUD sunsetting provisions within the LDC until the latter of the three SDPs 3 • • are approved. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions now in effect in the LDC (see LDC Section 10.02.13 D 1.a) shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. As each residential condominium building receives a certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth (1/5) of what is known as the GC Parcel which at the time the entire project is developed will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2)residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit 2. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reason,then all of the GC Parcel including without limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those portions allowed for the two (2) residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 for the Preserve Parcel. 9. To fully satisfy its obligations to construct sidewalks along adjacent off-site public roads, Lodge shall construct a pathway ten (10) feet in width on the western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006) in lieu of building a sidewalk on Wiggins Pass Road and a sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. This construction shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall commence upon the issuance of the building permit for the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Project. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached to this Agreement and Release shall be increased from fifteen (15) to seventeen (17) habitable floors,but shall not exceed 175 habitable feet in height. Footnote 2 to Table 1 of Paragraph 3.5 4 , • • entitled "Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards" of the PUD shall hereby be deemed revised in accordance with this provision of this Agreement and Release. The-minium The maximum number of dwelling units to be constructed by Lodge shall not illr exceed 590 units. Of these, a maximum of 590 units shall be multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However, two (2)units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as follows: minimum lot area—6,000 square feet; minimum lot width—sixty (60) feet; front yard setback from internal road — twenty (20) feet; front yard accessory building including parking structure — twenty (20) feet; side yard — seven point five (7.5) feet; rear yard— twenty (20) feet; rear yard for the accessory building — ten (10) feet; maximum building height — eighteen (18)feet; minimum floor area— 1200 square feet; each single family dwelling u t shall be set back a minimum of 200 feet from the north and east boundaries of the PUD Project. Building height shall be as defined in Table 1 of Paragraph 3.5 of the PUD. 012. What has been referred to as the R-1 and R-2 Parcels shall be replaced by a single R parcel as set forth in the revised PUD Master Plan, attached to this Agreement and Release as Exhibit 3. The development standards for the R Parcel are as set forth in the high rise multi- family dwellings portion of Table 1 of Paragraph 3.5 of PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 (except as may be expressly modified by the Agreement and Release). 5 13. If there are additional changes to the Bald Eagle Management Plan required by federal or state agencies, no further County PUD amendment process shall be required. Lodge, however, shall be required to notify the County of any such changes required by state or federal agencies, which will then require an administrative change by the County to any of the previously approved SDPs emote-iris under review or that have been approved by the County. 14. Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, waive and forever discharge the County, its elected officials, employees, ex-elected officials, ex-employees, insurers, sureties, agents, attorneys, and representatives of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord. No. 2000-88, the related Bald Eagle Management Plan or any amendment or proposed amendment of the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 or the Bald Eagle Management Plan through the date this Agreement and Release are approved and authorized by the Board for the Chairman's signature including without limitation all Harris Act claims and the claim asserted in Case No. 05-967-CA. This release is shall be immediately effective as--of-the-date upon the County's approvesal the fo.r: e *phis- „ent f the 3 SDPs in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement and Release. 15. In the event of a third party challenge to this Agreement and Release, the County and Lodge agree to work cooperatively to defend this Agreement and Release. In this regard,the County and Lodge shall each seek to become parties to any such challenge proceeding if one or the other of them is not named as a party in the first instance. The County and Lodge shall each bear their own costs and attorney's fees in any such proceeding. 6 S • 16. If any third party challenge to this Agreement and Release should ever be successful, after exhaustion of all appeals or other requests for review or reconsideration or federal permit conditions prevent Lodge from being able to develop the project consistent with the revised PUD Master Plan then the County agrees to return all money provided by Lodge under this Agreement and Release upon sixty (60) days written notice from Lodge and to allow Lodge to retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. In addition, if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain required fecal; state-or federal permits (exclusive of any federal permits or approvals for docks), Lodge likewise will be entitled to a refund of all moneys provided under this Agreement and Release within sixty(60)days of written notice from Lodge and Lodge shall retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. 17. Nothing in this Agreement and Release or the settlement documents shall be construed or interpreted to confer any rights to docks or any particular number of docks. Any application for docks by Lodge or its successors or assigns shall be fully subject to all federal, state and County permitting requirements and reviews. 18. The settlement and the Agreement and Release shall be binding upon Lodge's and the County's predecessors,successors,assigns,officers,employees,owners, elected officials,ex- elected officials,ex-employees,insurers,principals and representatives. 19. This Agreement and Release shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. 20. 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. 7 • • 21. The County and Lodge acknowledge that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision that may exist in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party either based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous language or that the language in question was intended to favor one party or the other. 22. The effective date of this Agreement and Release shall be the date upon which the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida approves and authorizes the Chairman to execute this document. 23. The County and Lodge acknowledge and assume the risk that additional,different or contrary facts to the facts which they believe exist may now exist or may be discovered after this Agreement and Release has been entered into, and they agree that any such additional, different or contrary facts shall in no way limit, waive, affect or alter this Agreement and Release. The County affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the project as authorized by the PUD and this Agreement and Release or the enforceability of this Agreement and Release. Lodge affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the project as authorized by the PUD and this Agreement and Release or the enforceability of this Agreement and Release. 24. In the event of a breach of this Agreement and Release, either party to this Agreement and Release may enforce its terms in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In this respect, the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary. 8 • • ATTEST: Dwight E. Brock, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: BY: DEPUTY CLERK JAMES N. COLETTA,CHAIRMAN WITNESSES: Signed Name Printed Name LODGE ABBOTT ASSOCIATES,LLC BY: Signed Name ITS: Printed Name Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Michael W. Pettit Chief Assistant County Attorney 06-cmd-00024/1294 9 GoodnerAngela From: Aluminum Glass Solutions <aluminumglasssolutions@centurylink.net> Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 1:36 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 2"d 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 GoodnerAngela 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 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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@jndmech.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 2 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 GoodnerAngela From: Andy Cathey <acathey@rosenmaterials.com> Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 7:58 AM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Phase 2 To the Collier County Commissioners, I have been a resident of Collier County since 1987 and part of the Construction industry since 1989. It has come to my attention that there is some opposition to the 2nd phase of Kalea Bay. My company, Rosen Materials, supplies building materials and supplied Kalea Bay Phase 1. During that time we added additional employees that have supported Collier County in many other areas. I am concerned with any decision to stop this project as it will continue to provide our employees (currently at 32) continued employment. The construction industry as well as SW Florida have been through some very tough times in recent years and it is encouraging to see and be part of a positive outlook and growing economy. Thank you for your time! Andy Cathey Regional Manager-West Florida 239-253-8529 acathey@rosenmaterials.com ROSEN MATE RIALS 3 GoodnerAngela From: Josh Willard <Josh.Willard@manhattanconstruction.com> Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 7:25 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Attachments: 2017.07.05_Kalea Bay_CCBC Letter.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Good morning. Please see the attached letter regarding the Kalea Bay project. I greatly appreciate your attention to this matter. Thank you, Manhattan Building excellence. Josh Willard Senior Project Manager Manhattan Construction (Florida), Inc. 3705-1 Westview Dr, Naples, FL 34104 239.643.6000 phone 239.643.6030 fax I 239.895.5671 cell josh.willard(cr�manhattanconstruction.com www.manhattanconstruction.com The only thing better than recognizing a quality product is building one. 4 Manhattan Construction(Florida),Inc. 239.643.6000(office) 3705-1 Westview Dr. 239.643.0090(facsimile) Naples,FL 34104 www.manhattanconstruction.com Manhattan Building excellence. — — June 30, 2017 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N. Naples, FL 34104 To Whom It May Concern: I have recently learned that the next phase of Kalea Bay is being met with some resistance. This causes me concern, not only as someone who currently works at the Kalea Bay project, but also as a Collier County resident. Kalea Bay is one of the most important economic milestones to emerge in Southwest Florida since the recession. Kalea Bay delivers opportunity to varying local companies and,to date has provided work to hundreds of people in the local workforce. A project of this magnitude creates years of economic growth for both the construction industry and local businesses. Manhattan Construction and our partners in the Southwest Florida community will be directly impacted by the outcome of your upcoming meeting regarding Kalea Bay. The Lodge Abbott team has been a forward thinking and driving force in this community for decades. They have been a valued partner for numerous local businesses and members of the community. They have provided opportunities when our industry has seen its highest and lowest moments. In addition, as an employee of Manhattan Construction, I have spent a great deal of time with the Collier County staff and I cannot emphasize enough the level of professionalism at which each project is handled. From my experience,the team at the Growth Management Department have always conducted business with the highest standards in strict accordance with all of the applicable codes. I,for one, am proud of my involvement with Kalea Bay and implore you to consider the positive impact of this project when making your decision. Thank you, os it a'� Seni 'r Projec anager Man attan Construction (Florida), Inc. GoodnerAngela From: BrownleeMichael Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 3:33 PM To: BrownleeMichael; FilsonSue; GoodnerAngela; GrecoSherry; LykinsDave Subject: Hand Delivered item re: item 8A Attachments: 20170707153154508.pdf In addition to the email sent this afternoon, Katherine English's office (Pavese Law Firm) hand delivered the attached this afternoon at 3:25pm. Michael Brownlee Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Donna Fiala, District#1 W. Harmon Turner Building-Bldg"F" 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite#303 Naples, FL 34112 P: (239) 252-8601 F: (239) 252-6578 MichaelBrownlee@colliergov.net C..,o r C 01411ty Subscribe to Commissioner Fiala's Newsletter here. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 5 GoodnerAngela 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 5 e-e Brow Oe er vo/,2 - Ste►' - a chrvv2.-A- 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 Legal Assistant to Katherine R. English JJ\/1SE 1833 Hendry Street(33901) JA\A yj TDJ I Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers,FL 33902 u 'j-- Direct 239.336.6249 Fax 239.332.2243 sandvsmith(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. 7 PAVE,SE KATHERINE R.ENGLISH Partner LAW FIRM - Email:�nrhrriDirect dial;(239)336.6249 m•t nn{ictviimavr,Aa‘a ram 1833 Hendry Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 I P.O. Box 1507, Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1507 I(239)334-2195 I Fax(239) 332-2243 rBEOTIET July 7, 2017 11 JUL 0 7 2017 Board of County Commissioners Mr. Matthew McLean By Collier County,Florida Engineering Services- 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Growth Management Division Naples,FL 34112 Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Collier County Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112-5749 Naples,FL 34112-5746 Re: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Administrative Appeal by Judith S. Palay, et al. Kalea Bay Phases 2-6 PL20160002242 Ladies and Gentlemen: Our firm represents Lodge/Abbott Associates, LLC and Lodge/Abbott Investments Associates,LLC. (collectively,"Lodge/Abbott"),the owners of Cocohatchee Bay PUD.We are co-counsel with Margaret Cooper, Esquire,of Jones Foster Johnston&Stubbs who handled the earlier litigation resulting in the 2008 Settlement Agreement regarding this project. I will be appearing at the appeal hearing on July 11, 2017 on behalf of Lodge/Abbott.Also appearing for Lodge/Abbott will be Karen Bishop of PMS Inc.of Naples,Inc.Ms.Bishop is the project entitlement facilitator. This appeal arises from a challenge to Lodge/Abbott's request for an amendment to a previously issued site development plan(SDP Amendment)for the project authorizing Buildings 2,3 and 5. The original 2008 SDP for which an amendment is sought was approved by staff in the regular course of business. The Appellants make much of the fact that the County and the land owner entered into the Settlement Agreement resolving a dispute over the appropriate approach to a bald eagle management plan for the project. The Settlement Agreement and its provisions are not relevant to the appeal challenging the present amendment to the SDP. The SDP Amendment subject to this appeal is limited in scope and includes only issues normally addressed by staff in the regular course of business. 4632 VINCENNES BOULEVARD,SUITE 101 4524 GUN CLUB ROAD,SUITE 203 CAPE CORAL,FLORIDA 33904 WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33415 (239)542-3148 (561)471-1366 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7, 2017 Page 2 The purpose of this letter is as follows: To request intervenor and party status for the project owner,Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC.,identified as the owner for the application to the amendment of AR-5284,Phases 2-6. To provide you with historical context of the Cocohatchee PUD and 2008 Settlement Agreement relative to the present SDP Amendment that is the subject of this appeal. To request determination of the standing of the Appellants to take an appeal in the first place. To address the scope of the appeal and identify the limited issues which can be heard in this appeal. To address the authority vested in staff and the standard of review of the Board on an appeal. To address the substantive arguments raised by Appellants. Intervenor/Party Status Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC. is the project owner and holder of the amended site development plan approval(SDP)for Buildings 2,3 and 5,from which this appeal arises.The appeal is a challenge to the decision of County staff approving the requested amendment; however, the appeal directly affects Lodge/Abbott's authorized plans for the phases of the project specifically approved by this SDP Amendment. Lodge/Abbott is an interested and affected party with vested development rights and it should be given party intervenor status and, be allowed to present evidence and argument and cross examine other parties' witnesses. We request confirmation of the same. Historical Overview' of the PUD and the 2008 Settlement PUD History. Collier County Ordinance No. 2000-88 was passed December 12,2000.It approved a planned unit development known as the "Cocohatchee Bay PUD" (the "Subject Property" or "Project"). Attached to the Ordinance was the original PUD document. Attached to the PUD document was a Bald Eagle Management Plan to address bald eagles nesting in an extremely degraded pine tree on a portion of the property that was near the planned residential development. The development committed to provide all required state and federal permits as a requirement of development. The PUD Ordinance authorized 590 residential units in five residential towers and multi-family homes located on a parcel west of the golf course.The ratified PUD constituted a substantial"down zoning"from the prior zoning substantially reducing the number of units and significantly reducing the traffic impacts associates therewith. In addition to the immediately realized reduction of density,there was substantial increase of I 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. 1 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 B. 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 RI 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 1 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! 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, 1A 20140001382 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 EE 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. 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 staffs discretion to consider reduced building setbacks to facilitate clustering.This suggestion by the CCPC was not accepted by BCC and is not part of the Settlement Agreement the BCC approved. Contrary to Appellants claims that the buildings are too close,the Collier County LDC specifically sets forth definitions for"cluster"and"cluster development"that provide for closely grouping buildings in order to provide environmental benefits. Indeed, the definitions for those words include the rationale for allowing closely grouping buildings in order to increase open space and reduce impacts to native vegetation and habitat areas while reducing the costs of providing services. 4 Next Appellants argue that staff abused its discretion in approving the reduction of building separation by large percentages and that reductions should be limited to small percentages of the overall building separation requirements. The Amended Cocohatchee Bay Community Development Standards for the "R" District set forth in Table II of the amended PUD states that the distance between principal structures is 0.5 times the sum of the building heights,subject to Note 3 which states: Where buildings with a common architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another, and the walls are not parallel to one another, the setbacks can be administratively reduced. The plan language of the PUD clearly states that the building separation can be administratively reduced. Further,since the BCC in reviewing and adopting the amended PUD as part of the Settlement 4 LDC Section1.08.02 Cluster:Concentrating or grouping buildings more closely than in conventional arrangements,locating such buildings on a limited portion of a development site,in order to allow for open space or preservation of natural features. Cluster development:A design technique allowed within residential zoning districts or where residential development is an allowable use.This form of development employs a more compact arrangement of dwelling units by allowing for,or requiring as the case may be,reductions in the standard or typical lot size and yard requirements of the applicable zoning district,in order to: increase common open space;reduce the overall development area;reduce alterations and impacts to natural resources on the site;to preserve additional native vegetation and habitat areas;and,to reduce the cost of providing services,including but not limited to central sewer and water. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr. Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 10 Agreement chose not prohibit administrative reductions of building separation nor did it set a limit on administrative discretion to do so. The modification of the building separation by staff is clearly authorized where the walls are not parallel to each other and the language of the amended PUD clearly explains the circumstances which would give rise to that determination(angled,skewed,or offset). Further,clearly the BCC knows how to limit staff discretion for clustering since it adopted limits to building as part of Table 5 of LDC Section 4.02.04. LDC Section 4.02.04 sets forth the design standards for cluster residential design in Subsection(C)Table 5 which clearly limits the reduction of distance between principle structures to no less than 10 feet. However, Subsection F goes on to state that additional reductions may be approved by the Collier County Planning Commission. Clearly,the BCC does limit staff discretion to reducing the building separation to no less than 10 feet. There is no indication in the documents associated with this Project that this limitation applies to the SDP Amendment. In this instance,Lodge/Abbott is entitled to seek administrative approval to reduced building separations pursuant to its amended PUD. Even if the limitation on the reduction of building separation set forth in LDC Section 4.02.04 does apply to the pending SDP Amendment,the building separation reduction authorized in no way approaches the limits set forth in Table 5. Issue 3. Building Widths This is the same argument as Issue 2, but stated in terms of building width rather than building separation.This argument fails for the same reasons set forth above. Issue 4. Guest Suites This issue is not timely raised. Guest suites were approved as part of the original PUD and authorized for construction in earlier SDPs.Guest suites as defined in the LDC and the PUD are not"units"for purposes of calculating density by rule. Guest suites cannot be sold to third parties,but are instead part of the common area amenities for use by all unit owners specifically to accommodate their guest overflow.Further,these units do not include a kitchen which is required for a dwelling units. This issue cannot be addressed again on appeal of approval of an amended SDP for Buildings 2, 3 and 5. 5 Collier LDC Section 1.08.02 Definitions: Dwelling(also called dwelling unit):My building,or part thereof,constituting a separate,independent housekeeping establishment for no more than I family,and physically separated from any other rooms or housekeeping establishments which may be in the same structure.A dwelling unit contains sleeping facilities,sanitary facilities,and a kitchen. Guest quarters/guest suites:An attached or detached room or suite,which could be used as a temporary sleeping accommodation, which is integrated as part of the principal use of the property and may contain running water as long as it is not configured or of a size that may accommodate a kitchen. Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Leo E. Ochs,Jr. County Manager Mr.Matthew McLean July 7,2017 Page 11 Issue S. Building Height This is a non-issue. The locating amenities on the roof area of each tower were previously addressed. There is no amenity located on the roof that affects calculation of the building height. The current amenities located on the roof tops are limited to a recreational area that is not enclosed in an air-conditioned space. By code,these amenities are not sufficient to constitute an additional floor for height calculations. Issue 6. Garage Dwelling Unit The proposed building manager's living area in the.SDP Amendment is not within the garage,but in a separate building that is part of the common area for the Project. It is an accessory use, not a unit offered separately for sale,to assure housing for on-site management. Staff's approval of the building manager's living area in the separate building as an accessory use has no effect on the calculation of building height for Buildings 2, 3 and 5. The approval is authorized by the PUD provision regarding accessory uses. See Section 3.4.B.3.6 Furthermore,the manager's unit does not count toward density under the applicable LDC regulations and the PUD as an accessory use. Issue 7. Restrictive Covenant This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal.Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to restrictive covenants. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 8. Invasive Control. This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal.Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to invasive control. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. Issue 9. Ten Foot Pathway This has nothing to do with the amended SDP approval under appeal. Lodge/Abbott is in compliance with all PUD requirements relative to the ten foot pathway. An assertion that the project is not in compliance should not be addressed by the BCC under the guise of an administrative appeal of SPD amendment. }P- t 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 atherine R. EtIglish / MLC/KRE:ebg cc: Ralf Brookes,Esquire Margaret L. Cooper, Esquire Michael Bosi Karen Bishop GoodnerAngela From: Inga 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 0-7 C) 0 6 GoodnerAngela 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 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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. tOMMUNILYLE IECTR1C pFiCOLIIIER, INC. �� ~ t x+ iiik Bret Russell Groos President Office: 239-262-3438 Fax: 239-262-6943 Mobile: 239-253-0807 Bret.Groos@communityelectricfl.com 8 GoodnerAngela From: Judi Palay <judi@palay.org> Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2017 9:52 PM To: SolisAndy Cc: GoodnerAngela Subject: RE:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Could you please let me know if you and the other Commissioners received the narrative we submitted for the Administrative Appeal. Thank you- Note new email address please Judi Palay judi@palay.org 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Original Message From:GoodnerAngela [mailto:AngelaGoodner@colliergov.net] On Behalf Of SolisAndy Sent: Friday,June 16, 2017 12:34 PM To:Judi Palay<judi@palay.org> Subject: RE:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Thanks for the new address,Judi-- I will update our records. The Commissioner was referring to a request from Mr. Brookes that went through the County Attorney's office. And I had confirmed with the Chair's aide that she received the request as well. Have a good weekend! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Original Message From:Judi Palay [mailto:judi@palay.org] Sent: Friday,June 16, 2017 11:49 AM To:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: RE:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad I know--I sent it to her. This was just to keep you up to date as you are our Commissioner 9 Note new email address please Judi Palay judi@palay.org 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Original Message From:SolisAndy [mailto:AndySolis@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday,June 16, 2017 11:30 AM To:Judi Palay<judi@palay.org> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Subject: Re:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Judy, The request has been sent to Chairman Taylor.The setting of a time certain is up to her as the Chair. Unfortunately, I cannot discuss that with her due to the sunshine law. Atty Klatzkow will advise your attorney directly. Thank you. Andy Solis, Esq. County Commissioner, District 2 Collier County Board of Commissioners District Office: 239-252-8602 Sent from my iPhone On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM -0400, "Judi Palay"<judi@palay.org<mailto:judi@palay.org»wrote: Per Attorney Klatskow, we are requesting a time certain for the Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay because our attorney has a conflict for the morning of July 11. Would you please help us to assure that we may have legal representation with time and date certain. Thank you- Judi Palay Note new email address please Judi Palay judi@palay.org 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Forwarded message From: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com<mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com» Date:Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM 10 Subject:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net<mailto:JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net», SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net», BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net», CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net<mailto:NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net», OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net<mailto:LeoOchs@colliergov.net»,AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>> Thank you Jeff Please find letter attached to County Manager and BCC Chair regarding a request for advance time certain (delivered per email below). Can you please deliver this letter to them via email because per the recent proposed Fla Bar rules, I would like to communicate through you on this matter and I do not have the email for the BCC Chair. PS- I am available July 11 after 1 pm and also available anytime July 12 the following day as you note may happen given the number of expected items on this agenda. Thanks again, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone(239) 910-5464<tel:(239)%20910-5464> Fax(866) 341-6086<tel:(866)%20341-6086> RalfBrookes@gmail.com<mailto:RalfBrookes@gmail.com> Ralf@ RalfBrookesAttorney.com<mailto:Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com> Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttorney.com<http://www.ralfbrookesattorney.com/> On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 4:19 PM, KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» wrote: Ralf: We will run the ad as amended by you below. Please advise if you would like further changes.The ad will state a 9:00 am time, which is our present custom . The agenda is prepared by the County Manager and the Chair. Whether they will agree in advance to a 1:00 or later time certain is up to them. Given the number of expected items on this agenda, I cannot even say with certainty that this item will be heard on the 11th; it could be heard the following day. If any of this is not satisfactory,you can write the County Manager and the Chair a letter requesting a time certain, setting forth the reasons why you are requesting it, or you or someone else can request a time certain in front of the entire Board as they are approving the agenda during Item 2 on July 11th. 11 Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239) 252-2614<tel:(239)%20252-2614> From: Ralf Brookes [mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com<mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com>] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 3:15 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net<mailto:JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net»; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net»; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:M ichaelBosi@colliergov.net» Subject: Re: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Jeff Can you please provide me with assurance in writing in advance regarding not starting this item until I am able to be present on July 11th- I can be there anytime after 1 pm on July 11. I would prefer that the notice of hearing change 9:00 am to "1:00 pm or as soon thereafter as can be heard." [I also hope this would avoid confusion for the many citizens we expect to attend the hearing and allow them to comfortably arrive in the afternoon rather than be there all day in reliance on the official notice that they will read in the newpaper.] Also " "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution"should be removed and replaced with "Notice of Intent to Consider an Administrative Appeal" Many thanks in advance, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone (239) 910-5464<tel:(239)%20910-5464> Fax(866)341-6086<tel:(866)%20341-6086> RalfBrookes@gmail.com<mailto:RalfBrookes@gmail.com> Ralf@ RalfBrookesAttorney.com<mailto:Ralf@ RalfBrookesAttorney.com> Board Certified in City,County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttorney.com<http://www.ralfbrookesattorney.com/> On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 2:57 PM, SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net» wrote: Mr. Brookes, See the attached revised ad for your approval. Historically,the Board works to balance concerns of all parties. The Board exercises due diligence to grant specific times for agenda items when requested, and you have requested 1 p.m. or later. 12 You may approve the attached advertisement and then if necessary request an attendance should an issue arise. Please see attached. Respectfully, Camden Smith, MPA Operations Analyst Collier County Zoning and Planning 0. 239.252.1042<te I:(239)%20252-1042> From: RodriguezWanda Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 2:41 PM To:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net<mailto:JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net»; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net»; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net» Cc:AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net»;AllenDebbie <DebbieAllen@colliergov.net<mailto:DebbieAllen@colliergov.net»; NeetVirginia <VirginiaNeet@colliergov.net<mailto:VirginiaNeet@ colliergov.net» Subject: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Awaiting planning and (hopefully) petitioner approval. I will be requesting that the line"Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" be removed from the header. Wanda Rodriguez,ACP Advanced Certified Paralegal Office of the County Attorney (239) 252-8400<tel:(239)%20252-8400> From: Martha S.Vergara [mailto:Martha.Vergara@collierclerk.com] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 2:25 PM To: RodriguezWanda <WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net<mailto:WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net»;AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net»; 'Velasco,' <Jessica@colliergov.net<mailto:Jessica@colliergov.net»; BellowsRay <RayBellows@colliergov.net<mailto:RayBellows@colliergov.net»; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net»;SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net» Subject: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Hello All, Attached is the revised ad proof per the petitioners changes. Let me know if there are any other changes. Thanks, Martha 13 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 14 GoodnerAngela From: Renee Gaddis <renee@reneegaddis.com> Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2017 1:15 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; BurtSaunders@colliergov.n; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay PUD Attachments: renee letter July 6 2017.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Renee Gaddis Principal Designer RENEE GADDIS INTERIORS1 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 15 BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net PennyTaylor@colliergov.net BurtSaunders@colliergov.net DonnaFiala@colliergov.net AndySolis@colliergov.net McDaniel, Taylor, Saunder, Fiala, Solis Dear Collier County Commissioners: As a long-time Naples business owner, I am concerned that the opposition to the second phase of Kalea Bay, should it be successful, may adversely affect the Southwest Florida economy and the Collier County tax base. Projects such as this generate significant tax revenue for our county and at the same time require little in government services. That's a win-win for government. It will also provide hundreds of jobs to an industry that is coming off years of stagnation. Commissioners, I urge you to support the Kalea Bay development project and allow our free market to work as it is intended and over the objections of the not- in-my-backyard opposition. Sincerely, Renee Gaddis Renee Gaddis Interiors 9915 Tamiami Trail N #1 Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 431-8352 GoodnerAngela 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: image1.jpeg; ATT00001.txt Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 16 GoodnerAngela From: Brian Dollard <briandollardrce@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,July 3, 2017 1:13 PM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed To the Collier County Commissioners, It has been brought to my attention there is opposition to the development of the Kalea Bay Project by a few surrounding neighbors. Let me start by saying I am a 41 year Resident of Naples, I have been in the construction business for 38 years. I have seen all the changes from Ft. Myers to Marco Island.The construction industry here is 2nd to none for quality of job and the tradesman that build them. We are a vital part of our communities. From purchasing our own properties and creating commerce with other businesses and industries. Also by creating a better tax base for our State and local Government. I currently employ roughly 50 tradesman for our company. Local men and women who have families to provide and support.The Kalea bay Project is vital to my family and my employees families to live a quality life here in Southwest Florida. In this situation with the opposition opinion, it's a shame that a few who have their dwelling in the this location are opposed to those who would like a dwelling in the same location. (this makes no sense). The Kalea Bay project is the most beautiful thought out resort style community that I have been involved with and the privilege to work on. The construction Industry has been in some tough times as of late,just the past year or so we have been coming out of a serious slow down due to the financial crisis.All the people involved are starting to live a better life and contribute to the community in a more vigor way. If this project was delayed or stopped because of the few who only have their own interest in mind and not the greater good of the community it would be another hardship on the construction industry and the people involved. My company and its employees would certainly feel hardship in their lives. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Best regards to all of you. Brian Brian Dollard briandollardree@gmail.com RCE Contractors, Inc 3884 Progress Ave Naples, FL 34104 239-643-5758-Office 239-825-1532- Cell 239-643-6772-Fax CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is only for the person(s) named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail. 17 GoodnerAngela From: Arturo Guido <aguido@legnobastone.com> Sent: Monday,July 3, 2017 10:53 AM To: McDanielBill;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed "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(astone Wide Plank Flooring "Custom Designed Furniture for'Your Floor" 2684.-Corseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 (0)239-2061898 c#B Xegno 3asiione 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 18 GoodnerAngela 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 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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@iensenunderground.com Website:www.iensenunderground.com 20 GoodnerAngela From: John Wilkinson <John@sunmasterinc.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 3:10 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 21 GoodnerAngela 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 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 22 °Rise and rise main and again until lambs become lions' ;) ill nil 5 Scott H. Moore Sofia Systems Designer-AMS Saud 8 lhsian _'__.'d,4.F/5'0,7 VoWN.allgiagidliidViSOLaam i' ._`+---. Helping to transform lives by reducing your waistline and tiXckening your wallet!What excites you?!Change your dreams into goads! Q.41 TRUSTWORTHY LOYAL HELPFUL FRIENDLY COURTEOUS HIND ...A wads to live by :'e.',j!A '# ' OBEDIENT CHEERFUL THRIFTY BRAVE CLEAN REVERENT "" !J 4 t Scoutmaster-viwwtoap243naptescorn '+ Associate Advisor-DA HT Chapter,Osceola Lodge t *.iPt.'#'4� Scoutmaster-Wood Badge S4-88-16-1 t4cl, ix 00 23 GoodnerAngela From: pureplumbingl4 <pureplumbing14@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 2:01 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 • 24 GoodnerAngela From: Linda Crowe <linda.crowe@progressivewaste.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 1:55 PM To: "BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net'; FialaDonna; SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt Subject: Kalea Bay Tower#2 Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 t V WASTE.Cj� ON ac EL F .tin-,r,:li'tFix 11it'{'SSNfl 25 GoodnerAngela From: Aris Dougherty <adougherty1530@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 1:19 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: KALEA BAY 2 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 27 GoodnerAngela From: Teale Mueller <tealemueller@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,June 30,2017 11:59 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 &Associates i3910 old Coast Road maples. FL r+11O 259-7,9A-0110 o) 239-1-50-±$06.Cc) ` euleMuel1 \AN Wilson&Associates kir 1I3SUR. ±i+4 4F'.,, I 28 GoodnerAngela 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 Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.tiff Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 C.R. SMITH, LLC CONSTflUC',ON 29 GoodnerAngela 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 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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.ferqusononline.com 30 GoodnerAngela 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 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 31 GoodnerAngela From: Ron Bowling <ron@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday,June 29, 2017 12:23 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 32 GoodnerAngela From: Rene Acres-Hatch <Rene@acresplumbing.com> Sent: Thursday,June 29, 2017 11:51 AM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Andy Solis, 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 { ACRES a� , o PlUMBING . - t'7 24 HOUR EMERGENCY SERVICE Website Like us on Facebook 33 GoodnerAngela 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 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed bear 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 34 GoodnerAngela From: Gregory.Bennett@Ferguson.com Sent: Tuesday,June 27, 2017 11:23 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 35 GoodnerAngela From: Judi Palay <judi@palay.org> Sent: Friday,June 16, 2017 11:49 AM To: SolisAndy Subject: RE:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad I know--I sent it to her. This was just to keep you up to date as you are our Commissioner Note new email address please Judi Palay judi@palay.org 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Original Message From:SolisAndy [mailto:AndySolis@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday,June 16, 2017 11:30 AM To:Judi Palay<judi@palay.org> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Subject: Re:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Judy, The request has been sent to Chairman Taylor.The setting of a time certain is up to her as the Chair. Unfortunately, I cannot discuss that with her due to the sunshine law. Atty Klatzkow will advise your attorney directly. Thank you. Andy Solis, Esq. County Commissioner, District 2 Collier County Board of Commissioners District Office: 239-252-8602 Sent from my iPhone On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM -0400, "Judi Palay"<judi@palay.org<mailto:judi@palay.org»wrote: Per Attorney Klatskow,we are requesting a time certain for the Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay because our attorney has a conflict for the morning of July 11. Would you please help us to assure that we may have legal representation with time and date certain. Thank you- Judi Palay Note new email address please 36 Judi Palay judi@palay.org 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Forwarded message From: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com<mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com» Date:Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM Subject:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net<mailto:JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net»,SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net», BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net», CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net<mailto:NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net», OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net<mailto:LeoOchs@colliergov.net»,AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net» Thank you Jeff Please find letter attached to County Manager and BCC Chair regarding a request for advance time certain (delivered per email below). Can you please deliver this letter to them via email because per the recent proposed Fla Bar rules, I would like to communicate through you on this matter and I do not have the email for the BCC Chair. PS- I am available July 11 after 1 pm and also available anytime July 12 the following day as you note may happen given the number of expected items on this agenda. Thanks again, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone(239) 910-5464<tel:(239)%20910-5464>Fax(866)341-6086<tel:(866)%20341-6086> RalfBrookes@gmail.com<mailto:RalfBrookes@gmail.com> Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com<mailto:Ralf@ RalfBrookesAttorney.com> Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttorney.com<http://www.ra Ifbrookesattorney.com/> 37 On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 4:19 PM, KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>> wrote: Ralf: We will run the ad as amended by you below. Please advise if you would like further changes.The ad will state a 9:00 am time,which is our present custom . The agenda is prepared by the County Manager and the Chair. Whether they will agree in advance to a 1:00 or later time certain is up to them. Given the number of expected items on this agenda, I cannot even say with certainty that this item will be heard on the 11th; it could be heard the following day. If any of this is not satisfactory,you can write the County Manager and the Chair a letter requesting a time certain,setting forth the reasons why you are requesting it,or you or someone else can request a time certain in front of the entire Board as they are approving the agenda during Item 2 on July 11th. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239) 252-2614<tel:(239)%20252-2614> From: Ralf Brookes [mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com<mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com>] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 3:15 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net» Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net<mailto:JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net»; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net» Subject: Re: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Jeff Can you please provide me with assurance in writing in advance regarding not starting this item until I am able to be present on July 11th- I can be there anytime after 1 pm on July 11. I would prefer that the notice of hearing change 9:00 am to "1:00 pm or as soon thereafter as can be heard." [I also hope this would avoid confusion for the many citizens we expect to attend the hearing and allow them to comfortably arrive in the afternoon rather than be there all day in reliance on the official notice that they will read in the newpaper.] Also" "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution"should be removed and replaced with "Notice of Intent to Consider an Administrative Appeal" Many thanks in advance, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone (239) 910-5464<tel:(239)%20910-5464> Fax(866)341-6086<tel:(866)%20341-6086> RalfBrookes@gmail.com<mailto:RalfBrookes@gmail.com> Ralf@ RalfBrookesAttorney.com<mailto:Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com> Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: 38 www.RalfBrookesAttorney.com<http://www.ralfbrookesattorney.com/> On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 2:57 PM, SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net» wrote: Mr. Brookes, See the attached revised ad for your approval. Historically,the Board works to balance concerns of all parties. The Board exercises due diligence to grant specific times for agenda items when requested, and you have requested 1 p.m. or later. You may approve the attached advertisement and then if necessary request an attendance should an issue arise. Please see attached. Respectfully, Camden Smith, MPA Operations Analyst Collier County Zoning and Planning O. 239.252.1042<te I:(239)%20252-1042> From: RodriguezWanda Sent: Thursday,June 15, 2017 2:41 PM To:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net<mailto:JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net»; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net»; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net» Cc:AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net»;AllenDebbie <DebbieAllen@colliergov.net<mailto:DebbieAllen@colliergov.net»; NeetVirginia <VirginiaNeet@colliergov.net<mailto:VirginiaNeet@ colliergov.net» Subject: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Awaiting planning and (hopefully) petitioner approval. I will be requesting that the line "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" be removed from the header. Wanda Rodriguez,ACP Advanced Certified Paralegal Office of the County Attorney (239) 252-8400<tel:(239)%20252-8400> From: Martha S.Vergara [mailto:Martha.Vergara@collierclerk.com] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 2:25 PM To: RodriguezWanda <WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net<mailto:WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net»;AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net»; 'Velasco,' <Jessica@colliergov.net<mailto:Jessica@colliergov.net»; BellowsRay <RayBellows@colliergov.net<mailto:RayBellows@colliergov.net»; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelBosi@colliergov.net»;SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net<mailto:CamdenSmith@colliergov.net» Subject: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal 39 Hello All, Attached is the revised ad proof per the petitioners changes. Let me know if there are any other changes. Thanks, Martha Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 40 GoodnerAngela From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Friday,June 16, 2017 9:36 AM To: SolisAndy Cc: OchsLeo Subject: TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Attachments: TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay.pdf Commissioner: A copy of this was forwarded to the Chair. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239) 252-2614 From: Ralf Brookes [mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 4:51 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net>; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo <Leoochs@colliergov.net>;AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Subject:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Thank you Jeff Please find letter attached to County Manager and BCC Chair regarding a request for advance time certain (delivered per email below). Can you please deliver this letter to them via email because per the recent proposed Fla Bar rules, I would like to communicate through you on this matter and I do not have the email for the BCC Chair. PS - I am available July 11 after 1 pm and also available anytime July 12 the following day as you note may happen given the number of expected items on this agenda. Thanks again, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 41 Phone (239)910-5464 Fax(866) 341-6086 RalfBrookes@amail.com Ralf@RalfBrookesAttomey.com Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RaifBrookesAttornev.com On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:19 PM,KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>wrote: Ralf: We will run the ad as amended by you below. Please advise if you would like further changes. The ad will state a 9:00 am time,which is our present custom . The agenda is prepared by the County Manager and the Chair. Whether they will agree in advance to a 1:00 or later time certain is up to them. Given the number of expected items on this agenda, I cannot even say with certainty that this item will be heard on the 11th; it could be heard the following day. If any of this is not satisfactory, you can write the County Manager and the Chair a letter requesting a time certain, setting forth the reasons why you are requesting it, or you or someone else can request a time certain in front of the entire Board as they are approving the agenda during Item 2 on July 11 to Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239)252-2614 From: Ralf Brookes [mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.coml Sent:Thursday,June 15,2017 3:15 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net>;SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Jeff 42 Can you please provide me with assurance in writing in advance regarding not starting this item until I am able to be present on July 11th - I can be there anytime after 1 pm on July 11. I would prefer that the notice of hearing change 9:00 am to "1:00 pm or as soon thereafter as can be heard." [I also hope this would avoid confusion for the many citizens we expect to attend the hearing and allow them to comfortably arrive in the afternoon rather than be there all day in reliance on the official notice that they will read in the newpaper.] Also " "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" should be removed and replaced with "Notice of Intent to Consider an Administrative Appeal" Many thanks in advance, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone (239)910-5464 Fax(866)341-6086 RalfBrookesngmail.com Ralf(aiRalfBrookesAttorney.com Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttornev.com On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:57 PM, SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>wrote: Mr. Brookes, 43 See the attached revised ad for your approval. Historically, the Board works to balance concerns of all parties. The Board exercises due diligence to grant specific times for agenda items when requested, and you have requested 1 p.m. or later. You may approve the attached advertisement and then if necessary request an attendance should an issue arise. Please see attached. Respectfully, Camden Smith, MPA Operations Analyst Collier County Zoning and Planning O. 239.252.1042 From: RodriguezWanda Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 2:41 PM To: VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net>; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net> Cc: AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>; AllenDebbie<DebbieAllen@colliergov.net>;NeetVirginia <VirginiaNeetC colliergov.net> Subject: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Awaiting planning and (hopefully) petitioner approval. I will be requesting that the line "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" be removed from the header. Wanda Rodriguez, .SCP AdvancedCertified Para(egar 44 Office of the County.Attorney (249)252-8400 ii 1 From: Martha S. Vergara [mailto:Martha.Vergara(a�collierclerk.com] E Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 2:25 PM To: RodriguezWanda<WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net>;AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>; 'Velasco,' <Jessica@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay<RayBellows(a,colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosia,colliergov.net>; SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net> Subject: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal li Hello All, Attached is the revised ad proof per the petitioners changes. Let me know if there are any other changes. I Thanks, , 1 Martha Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 45 GoodnerAngela From: Judi Palay <judi@palay.org> Sent: Thursday,June 15,2017 5:13 PM To: TaylorPenny; OchsLeo Cc: SolisAndy Subject: FW:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad Attachments: TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay.pdf Per Attorney Klatskow,we are requesting a time certain for the Administrative Appeal Kalea Bay because our attorney has a conflict for the morning of July 11.Would you please help us to assure that we may have legal representation with time and date certain. Thank you- Judi Palay Note new email address please Judi Palay judi@palay.org 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Forwarded message From: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com> Date:Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM Subject:TIME CERTAIN REQUEST for ADMIN APPEAL KALEA BAY: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelascoC@colliergov.net>, SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>, BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>, CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>, OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net>,AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net> Thank you Jeff Please find letter attached to County Manager and BCC Chair regarding a request for advance time certain (delivered per email below). Can you please deliver this letter to them via email because per the recent proposed Fla Bar rules, I would like to communicate through you on this matter and I do not have the email for the BCC Chair. PS- I am available July 11 after 1 pm and also available anytime July 12 the following day as you note may happen given the number of expected items on this agenda. Thanks again, Ralf 46 Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone(239)910-5464 Fax(866)341-6086 RalfBrookes@gmail.com Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttornev.com On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 4:19 PM, KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>wrote: Ralf: We will run the ad as amended by you below. Please advise if you would like further changes.The ad will state a 9:00 am time,which is our present custom . The agenda is prepared by the County Manager and the Chair. Whether they will agree in advance to a 1:00 or later time certain is up to them. Given the number of expected items on this agenda, I cannot even say with certainty that this item will be heard on the 11th; it could be heard the following day. If any of this is not satisfactory, you can write the County Manager and the Chair a letter requesting a time certain, setting forth the reasons why you are requesting it,or you or someone else can request a time certain in front of the entire Board as they are approving the agenda during Item 2 on July 11th Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239) 252-2614 From: Ralf Brookes [mailto:ralfbrookes@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 3:15 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net> Cc:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net>;SmithCamden <CamdenSmithPcolliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Ad 47 Jeff Can you please provide me with assurance in writing in advance regarding not starting this item until I am able to be present on July 11th- I can be there anytime after 1 pm on July 11. I would prefer that the notice of hearing change 9:00 am to "1:00 pm or as soon thereafter as can be heard." [I also hope this would avoid confusion for the many citizens we expect to attend the hearing and allow them to comfortably arrive in the afternoon rather than be there all day in reliance on the official notice that they will read in the newpaper.] Also " "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" should be removed and replaced with "Notice of Intent to Consider an Administrative Appeal" Many thanks in advance, Ralf Ralf Brookes Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway#107 Cape Coral Florida 33904 Phone (239)910-5464 Fax(866) 341-6086 RalfBrookesPgmail.com Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Please visit my website at: www.RalfBrookesAttornev.com On Thu,Jun 15, 2017 at 2:57 PM, SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>wrote: 48 Mr. Brookes, See the attached revised ad for your approval. Historically,the Board works to balance concerns of all parties. The Board exercises due diligence to grant specific times for agenda items when requested, and you have requested 1 p.m. or later. You may approve the attached advertisement and then if necessary request an attendance should an issue arise. Please see attached. Respectfully, Camden Smith, MPA Operations Analyst Collier County Zoning and Planning 0. 239.252.1042 From: RodriguezWanda Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 2:41 PM To:VelascoJessica<JessicaVelasco@colliergov.net>;SmithCamden<CamdenSmith@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net> Cc:AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>;AllenDebbie<DebbieAllen@colliergov.net>; NeetVirginia <VirginiaNeet@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Awaiting planning and (hopefully) petitioner approval. I will be requesting that the line "Notice of Intent to Consider a Resolution" be removed from the header. 49 Wanda Rodriguez, ACP Advanced Certified ParaCegaI Office of the County Attorney (23o)252-8400 From: Martha S.Vergara [mailto:Martha.Vergara@collierclerk.com] Sent:Thursday,June 15, 2017 2:25 PM To: RodriguezWanda<WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net>;AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net>; 'Velasco,' <Jessica@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay<RayBellows@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net> Subject: PL201700002165 Judith Palay Appeal Hello All, Attached is the revised ad proof per the petitioners changes. Let me know if there are any other changes. Thanks, Martha Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 50 GoodnerAngela From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Monday,June 12, 2017 4:26 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Attachments: 3 NarrativeAttachedtoAppealJune62017.pdf Commissioner: This should get you started. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239)252-2614 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing. 51 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 10:56 AM To: William Becraft Subject: RE: One Naples & Kalea Bay Thanks for your response, Mr. Becraft-and for catching my typo—I've typed the name so often in the last couple of weeks it's becoming a blur! We'll all be watching to see what is actually proposed when they do make application. Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:William Becraft [mailto:wbecraft@yahoo.com] Sent:Thursday, May 25, 2017 7:16 PM To:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Cc:William Becraft<wbecraft@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: One Naples& Kalea Bay The proposed One Naples (Not Naples One) project, could be very beneficial to the Vanderbilt Beach area, the area needs to be updated, but the scale needs to be toned down. Limit the new units to 100 - 150. The area could handle that kind of growth. Three hundred new units and 900-1200 more people would have a very detrimental effect on the area. Listen to the people who have lived in the Vanderbilt Beach area for many years,their quality of life is important. Bill Becraft From: SolisAndy <AndvSolisacolliergov.net> To: "wbecraft@yahoo.com" <wbecraftAyahoo.com> Cc: Marc Johnson <cimarc( aol.com>; jeff barkley-beachwalk <iigulfsideaol.com>; Jon Christensen <lynionllc(c�gmail.com>; Tom Glennon <tomq1941qmail.com>; Jim McComb <kdm7734(vahoo.com>; "Richardson, George" <grichardsonjcu.edu>; Topper Woelfer <twoelferl 0(gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:49 PM Subject: RE: One Naples & Kalea Bay Thank you for your email on the proposed Naples One project. I appreciate your concerns and know they are shared by many in the Vanderbilt Beach and surrounding areas. The Naples One project as presented is conceptual at best. At the time of this writing, Stock Development has not yet submitted any applications to the County for this development. There has been one, pre-application meeting; notes from staff after that meeting include the following excerpt: 52 "Overall, the project is unsettled, thus the Pre-Application meeting seems premature. It is difficult to discuss specifics when project size, location(s), development details and other features are not pinned down. No definitive discussion of data and analysis could take place . . ." Once it is submitted, the project will be subject to many different levels of review before approval is granted. During the review process, there will be many opportunities for the residents to ask questions and weigh in on the proposal—at neighborhood information meetings (NIMs), the Collier County Planning Commission, and the County Commission itself. I would urge you and anyone else with concerns regarding the project to attend these publicly noticed meetings. Other residents have written me to share that they welcome a re-development of this corner, a highly visible area that they feel does not currently present the image they would choose for their neighborhood. Community involvement throughout the review process can help shape any project to better address the neighborhood's needs and desires. It is very likely that the project eventually presented to the Planning Commission and County Commission will differ significantly from what was described at the May 17 meeting or what is currently seen on the website. My office will be monitoring the project during the entire process. If you need any information or have any concerns as the project moves forward, or if we can be of help on any other issue, please feel free to contact us. On behalf of Commissioner Andy Solis Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From: William Becraft [mailto:wbecraftAyahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:27 AM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala(a�colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy <AndySolis(a�colliergov.net>; TaylorPenny <PennyTaylor(a,colliergov.net>; BillMcDanial a,colliergov.net Cc: William Becraft <wbecraftvahoo.com>; Marc Johnson <cimarcAaol.com>; jeff barkley-beachwalk <iigulfside(cr�aol.com>; Jon Christensen <Iynionllc(a�gmail.com>; Tom Glennon <tomg1941(a�gmail.com>; Jim McComb <kdm7734( vahoo.com>; Richardson, George <qrichardsonicu.edu>; Topper Woelfer <twoelferl 0na,gmail.com> 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. 53 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 Under Florida Law. e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 54 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 6:13 PM To: Donna Bianco Subject: RE: May 20, 2017 Hello, Ms. Bianco: Thank you for your email on the proposed Naples One project. I appreciate your concerns and know they are shared by many in the Vanderbilt Beach and surrounding areas. The Naples One project as presented is conceptual at best. At the time of this writing,Stock Development has not yet submitted any applications to the County for this development.There has been one, pre-application meeting; notes from staff after that meeting include the following excerpt: "Overall, the project is unsettled, thus the Pre-Application meeting seems premature. It is difficult to discuss specifics when project size, location(s), development details and other features are not pinned down. No definitive discussion of data and analysis could take place. . ." Once it is submitted,the project will be subject to many different levels of review before approval is granted. During the review process,there will be many opportunities for the residents to ask questions and weigh in on the proposal—at neighborhood information meetings (NIM5),the Collier County Planning Commission, and the County Commission itself. I would urge you and anyone else with concerns regarding the project to attend these publicly noticed meetings. Other residents have written me to share that they welcome a re-development of this corner, a highly visible area that they feel does not currently present the image they would choose for their neighborhood. Community involvement throughout the review process can help shape any project to better address the neighborhood's needs and desires. It is very likely that the project eventually presented to the Planning Commission and County Commission will differ significantly from what was described at the May 17 meeting or what is currently seen on the website. My office will be monitoring the project during the entire process. If you need any information or have any concerns as the project moves forward,or if we can be of help on any other issue, please feel free to contact us. On behalf of Commissioner Andy Solis Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From: Donna Bianco [mailto:ddonnabianco@gmail.com] Sent:Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:19 PM To:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: May 20, 2017 55 May 20, 2017 Dear Commissioner Solis, It was wonderful meeting with you at our Naples Park Association Clubhouse in April. During our meeting you discussed at length,the problems the Vanderbilt Beach area is enduring during season, highlighting traffic and beach access as the biggest concerns. We are now faced with yet another setback in our vision of beach access with the newly proposed project by Stock. Our community cannot accommodate yet another high-rise building of beachgoers! We continue to fight Moraya Bay and the lounge chairs they maintain as a stockade to keep locals from the area in front of their building, along the sand. The new Kalea Bay buildings will increase the density on that beach near the Immokalee Road access. During the NPAA meeting you proposed a trolley to move the people to beach access points all along Gulf Shore Drive, and in theory it may prove successful. But in reality the senior population of our community will have difficulty boarding the trolley with beach chairs, umbrellas, coolers...etc. The trolley is a band-aid on a much larger problem. We hope that you will support our efforts to increase community access to the local beaches and help us control the traffic we endure on a daily basis at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road during season. We need your help to assist Stock in focusing on community needs and not profits gained by their proposed development. My husband and I are counting on you to be our voice. Thank you, The Caccese Family Tom and Donna 56 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:50 PM To: wbecraft@yahoo.com Cc: Marc Johnson;jeff barkley-beachwalk;Jon Christensen; Tom Glennon;Jim McComb; Richardson, George ;Topper Woelfer Subject: RE: One Naples & Kalea Bay Thank you for your email on the proposed Naples One project. I appreciate your concerns and know they are shared by many in the Vanderbilt Beach and surrounding areas. The Naples One project as presented is conceptual at best. At the time of this writing,Stock Development has not yet submitted any applications to the County for this development.There has been one, pre-application meeting; notes from staff after that meeting include the following excerpt: "Overall, the project is unsettled, thus the Pre-Application meeting seems premature. It is difficult to discuss specifics when project size, location(s), development details and other features are not pinned down. No definitive discussion of data and analysis could take place. . ." Once it is submitted,the project will be subject to many different levels of review before approval is granted. During the review process,there will be many opportunities for the residents to ask questions and weigh in on the proposal—at neighborhood information meetings (NIMs),the Collier County Planning Commission, and the County Commission itself. I would urge you and anyone else with concerns regarding the project to attend these publicly noticed meetings. Other residents have written me to share that they welcome a re-development of this corner, a highly visible area that they feel does not currently present the image they would choose for their neighborhood. Community involvement throughout the review process can help shape any project to better address the neighborhood's needs and desires. It is very likely that the project eventually presented to the Planning Commission and County Commission will differ significantly from what was described at the May 17 meeting or what is currently seen on the website. My office will be monitoring the project during the entire process. If you need any information or have any concerns as the project moves forward, or if we can be of help on any other issue, please feel free to contact us. On behalf of Commissioner Andy Solis Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:William Becraft [mailto:wbecraft@yahoo.com] Sent:Wednesday, May 17,2017 9:27 AM To: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; SolisAndy <AndySolis@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; BillMcDanial@colliergov.net Cc:William Becraft<wbecraft@yahoo.com>; Marc Johnson <cjmarc@aol.com>;jeff barkley-beachwalk 58 <jjgulfside@aol.com>;Jon Christensen<lynjonllc@gmail.corn>;Tom Glennon<tomg1941@gmail.com>;Jim McComb <kdm7734@yahoo.com>; Richardson, George<grichardson@jcu.edu>;Topper Woelfer<twoelferl0@gmail.com> 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 59 GoodnerAngela 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 60 GoodnerAngela From: Stephen Giuntini <margstep@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 4:35 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Mr. Solis, I am a homeowner in the Cove Towers section of Wiggins Bay. I bought property in this area, and specifically this development, because I like the ambiance and the fact that the area is not overbuilt. The residents coexist with the natural habitat to the benefit of all. The Kalea Bay project has morphed from the acceptable building that was proposed and approved in 2008 to a monstrous multi-building project which will form a concrete wall that will blot out the gulf views and overwhelm the local infrastructure. The buildings themselves are much taller than anything else in the area, and they are being built much too close together in violation of current applicable codes. This project, if it continues as apparently planned, will have an adverse effect on surrounding property values. I sincerely hope you stand up for the interests of your constituents and make the Kalea Bay developers conform to the business plan that was submitted and approved, and to current building codes.We do not need or want this area to become Miami West. Thank You, Stephen Giuntini 430 Cove Tower Drive, Unit#803 (516)680-0979 61 GoodnerAngela From: JudiPalay@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:23 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification The SDP Amendment to AR5284 that we got sent is only up to p 3. The one from 3-16-17 has 20 pages. We cannot compare changes with only 3 sheets. Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/16/2017 6:18:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, AndySolis@colliergov.net writes: I don't know,Judi. Can you describe better for me what you're looking for? Then I will be happy to see where it can be found. Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday, May 16,2017 6:10 PM To:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Question for you- We obviously do not have all of the SDP pages. How can we get the pages not on that site? 62 Judi Palay 239-51 3-9141 805-824-661 5 In a message dated 5/16/201 7 5:56:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, AndySolis@colliergov.net writes: Judi—just wanted to check and make sure they either got you the SDP or let you know that CityView was working again,so you can see it online. If you'd rather get it via email,just let me know and I'll send it along. Thanks! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12,2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com; djreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; Klatzkowleff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? 63 Judi Palay 239-51 3-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. +4 -r CQNtnryy Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM 64 To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application P120160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4 —PL20160002242 KaleaCivi103_2017-0504-May 112017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 112017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. Coi.tnty Matt McLean, P.E. 65 Collier County Growth Management Department Director- Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>; WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Pala <JudiPalay@aol.com>; SolisAndy <AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 66 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLean Matthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, 67 The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head ' � olatriG�V Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock <Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean 68 Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 69 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:18 PM To: JudiPalay@aol.com Subject: RE: FW: Request for Immediate Notification I don't know,Judi. Can you describe better for me what you're looking for? Then I will be happy to see where it can be found. Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:10 PM To:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Question for you- We obviously do not have all of the SDP pages. How can we get the pages not on that site? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/16/2017 5:56:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, AndySolis@colliergov.net writes: Judi—just wanted to check and make sure they either got you the SDP or let you know that CityView was working again,so you can see it online. If you'd rather get it via email,just let me know and I'll send it along. Thanks! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 70 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalav@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalav@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12,2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressv@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com; dlreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/201 7 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Go County 71 Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA)application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4— PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans— 72 Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CitvViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co r Cars»ty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA <brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay <JudiPalav@aol.com>;SolisAndy<AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification 73 Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:ruonowdiane( gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. 74 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a)gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a�gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkisonna colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head Com► r County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@ycolliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA 75 <brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<dlreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay <JudiPalav@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdianena,gmail.com judipalav(a)aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity. instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 76 GoodnerAngela From: JudiPalay@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:10 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Question for you- We obviously do not have all of the SDP pages. How can we get the pages not on that site? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/16/2017 5:56:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, AndySolis@colliergov.net writes: Judi—just wanted to check and make sure they either got you the SDP or let you know that CityView was working again, so you can see it online. If you'd rather get it via email,just let me know and I'll send it along. Thanks! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com;dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com;djreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification 77 Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/201 7 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. C:itx ��' C.cna.riry Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 78 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application P120160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4— PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans— Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. 79 Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director- Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA <brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay <JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager 80 leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>wrote: 81 Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)is approved. David S.Wilkison,P.E. Department Head Cao er County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA <brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay <JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi 82 Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 83 GoodnerAngela From: JudiPalay@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:05 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you-- got it. We also notified them that we could not pull it up as CityView wasn't working. Thanks for checking! Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/16/2017 5:56:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, AndySolis@colliergov.net writes: Judi—just wanted to check and make sure they either got you the SDP or let you know that CityView was working again, so you can see it online. If you'd rather get it via email,just let me know and I'll send it along. Thanks! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com;dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com;djreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification 84 Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 85 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA)application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4— PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans— Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/locator by entering the application number P120160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. 86 Co Ccaunty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: Klatzkowleff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA <brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay <JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager 87 leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>wrote: 88 Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head Ccs er County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA <brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay <JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi 89 Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 90 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:56 PM To: JudiPalay@aol.com Subject: RE: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Judi—just wanted to check and make sure they either got you the SDP or let you know that CityView was working again, so you can see it online. If you'd rather get it via email,just let me know and I'll send it along. Thanks! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com; djreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence, associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. 91 er County Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo <LeoOchs@col liergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter 92 • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. J Co er County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael 93 <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv lgmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<iamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. 94 I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(o�gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a�gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison(cr�.colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison,P.E. Department Head Co er County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net 95 From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane(c�gmail.com judipalav(a�aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 96 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 12:43 PM To: McLeanMatthew Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Great,thanks, Matt. Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:28 AM To: GoodnerAngela<AngelaGoodner@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Yes,they were originally informed. I have had only one follow-up request for information which was provided last week. Matt From: GoodnerAngela Sent:Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:24 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you, Matt. Have the residents been informed as well? Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator County Commissioner Andy Solis District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6946 Sent from my iPhone From: McLeanMatthew<matthewmclean@colliergov.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:02 AM Subject: RE: FW: Request for Immediate Notification To: GoodnerAngela<angelagoodner a colliergov.net> Angela, The Cityview portal issue has been resolved. You should be able to download any of the associated documents from the public portal. If you need additional information, please let me know. Thanks. 98 Co r County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: GoodnerAngelaOn Behalf Of SolisAndy Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:45 PM To: McLeanMatthew<McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletterHERE! From:JudiPalav( aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>;ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net;brad@taxis-usa.com; direedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida(a colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;Strain Mark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>;rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? 99 Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co r Coxnty Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— 100 PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 112017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal linkhttp://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co. eV Caxnty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From: OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<bradc taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify youif/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." 101 I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a/gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(ca�gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkisonna colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head Go r uatY Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLean Matthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aoLcom>;AndvSolicePcolliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. 102 Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdianeqmail.com judipalavCu7aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 103 GoodnerAngela From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:28 AM To: GoodnerAngela Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Yes,they were originally informed. I have had only one follow-up request for information which was provided last week. Matt From: GoodnerAngela Sent:Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:24 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you, Matt. Have the residents been informed as well? Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator County Commissioner Andy Solis District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6946 Sent from my iPhone From: McLeanMatthew<matthewmclean@colliergov.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:02 AM Subject: RE: FW: Request for Immediate Notification To: GoodnerAngela<angelagoodner@colliergov.net> Angela, The Cityview portal issue has been resolved. You should be able to download any of the associated documents from the public portal. If you need additional information, please let me know. Thanks. County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 104 From: GoodnerAngelaOn Behalf Of SolisAndy Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:45 PM To: McLeanMatthew<McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean(a�colliergov.net> Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletterHERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>;ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@Bmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net;brad@taxis-usa.com; dlreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<iamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>;rupnowdiane@Bmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence, associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. 105 Co er Count y Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: Klatzkowleff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA)application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivi103_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 112017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal linkhttp://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. G o er Ceti Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department 106 Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<iamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify youif/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane©gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a�gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a�gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, 107 The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head Co >er County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: Klatzkowleff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com iudipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 108 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:24 AM To: McLeanMatthew Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you, Matt. Have the residents been informed as well? Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator County Commissioner Andy Solis District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6946 Sent from my iPhone From: McLeanMatthew<matthewmclean@colliergov.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:02 AM Subject: RE: FW: Request for Immediate Notification To: GoodnerAngela<angelagoodner@colliergov.net> Angela, The Cityview portal issue has been resolved. You should be able to download any of the associated documents from the public portal. If you need additional information, please let me know. Thanks. Cor County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: GoodnerAngelaOn Behalf Of SolisAndy Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:45 PM To: McLeanMatthew<McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: 109 Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletterHERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>;ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressv@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net;brad@taxis-usa.com; direedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<iamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>;rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er County Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 110 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA)application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal linkhttp://cvportal.colliergov.net/CitvViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM 111 To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;Casalanguida Nick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify youif/when a request for amendments to SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@aigmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdianeagmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane c(�.gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkisonacolliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head 112 Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdianeagmail.com judipalavaaol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 113 GoodnerAngela From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:02 AM To: GoodnerAngela Subject: RE: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Angela, The Cityview portal issue has been resolved. You should be able to download any of the associated documents from the public portal. If you need additional information, please let me know. Thanks. Co er Coxnty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: GoodnerAngela On Behalf Of SolisAndy Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:45 PM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! 114 From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com;dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com; direedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er CcnantY Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 115 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo <LeoOchs@col liergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 112017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. 116 r o er C°xnty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguidac colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. 117 Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdianeOgmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(o�gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdianegmail.com 402 580-1545 118 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison(u colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head Co er Co1411ty Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi 119 Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalav a(�aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 120 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Monday, May 15,2017 10:19 AM To: GoodnerAngela Subject: Kalea bay Dear Mr. Wood, Thank you for your email. As I have told Diane Rupnow and Judy Palay, I understand the concerns regarding the Kalea Bay development and the settlement agreement. For your information, I have not received any pressure from the developer or anyone else in regards to amending the settlement agreement. In fact, other than county staff(at Diane Rupnow and Judy Palay's request) and Brad Schiffer, I have not spoken to anyone other than Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay about Kalea Bay. I am also not aware that the developer has submitted any applications to change what is planned for the golf course property. I have asked staff to monitor the construction of the towers and the golf course very closely to ensure that the developer is only building what is allowed by the permits and the settlement agreement. Again,thank you for the email and I hope this clarifies where things stand. Andy Solis,Esq. Collier County Commissioner, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6946 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:jcdixiew@comcast.net[mailto jcdixiew@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 1:49 PM To: SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Subject: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Dear Commissioner Solis; My name is Joe Wood and I am a constituent of yours and have lived at 669 Mainsail Place in Tarpon Cove since 2004. My property abuts the east side of the Cocohatchee Bay property,previously identified as the Kinsale Golf Course, separated only by the canal. I am writing you because I am becoming aware that there that there is increasing pressure on you to re-open the Cocohatchee Bay settlement that was reached on this property in 2008 and 2015 keeping the land east of Vanderbilt Dr. as a preserve or golf course. The developer at the time was given more units (taller towers) on the west side of Vanderbilt Dr in lieu of putting buildings on this land. I represent many people in my neighborhood in asking you not to allow this settlement to be 121 re-opened. I have been in many meetings with your predecessors,Frank Halas and Georgia Hiller, to get it to stay where it is at. Work is proceeding on this almost daily, and while it is supposedly permitted to be a golf course, clear cutting is taking place that does not seem consistent with any golf course that I've ever been on. I contacted code compliance, and they said the clearing is approved, but would not confirm that the project was indeed a golf course. Please help us on this where you can. Joe Wood,President Cayman HOA at Tarpon Cove 239-593-5967 Angela Goodner,Executive Coordinator County Commissioner Andy Solis District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6946 Sent from my iPhone 122 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 9:53 AM To: GoodnerAngela Subject: FW: Kalea Bay Towers Site Development Attachments: Scan0018.jpg Hey,Andy—do you want me to share the letter from staff with this couple? Do you want to reply yourself,and then I'll have a template to use when other people respond about the approval? Let me know,thanks! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From: Ross Baiera [mailto:rjbaiera06@gmail.com] Sent:Saturday, May 13, 2017 11:56 AM To:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; BurtSanders@colliergov.net; TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: Kalea Bay Towers Site Development Commissioners, Please read the attachment. We are presently not at our Florida residence and can't attend the local hearings. Thank you. Ross J. Baiera for Ross J. and Patricia A. Baiera 123 GoodnerAngela From: U Fremeau <bljfremeau@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 11:40 AM To: SolisAndy Subject: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Mr. Solis: We understand that the developer of the land east of Vanderbilt Dr. is trying to reopen the settlement that was reached in 2008 and again in 2015. At that time the developer was given more units (taller towers) on the west side, in lieu of putting buildings on the east side (where a golf course) was originally planned. They are working on this land and clearing it, but it sure doesn't seem like it is for a golf course. Please, please do not let them reopen this settlement. Thank you for your time. Harold and Linda Fremeau 656 Mainsail Place 124 GoodnerAngela From: Ross Baiera <rjbaiera06@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 11:56 AM To: SolisAndy; FialaDonna; BurtSanders@colliergov.net;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Kalea Bay Towers Site Development Attachments: Scan0018jpg Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Commissioners, Please read the attachment. We are presently not at our Florida residence and can't attend the local hearings. Thank you. Ross J. Baiera for Ross J. and Patricia A. Baiera 125 11 Bluebill Ave., Unit 706 Naples, Florida 34108 May 8, 2017 TO: Board of Collier County Commissioners FROM: Ross J. and Patricia A. Baiera When is enough,enough? The proposed alterations to the Site Development Plan for Kalea Bay Towers further strain the already deteriorating landscape of North Naples. Even without the alterations,alterations that do not follow Collier County Building Codes and the Cocohatchee PUD Settlement Agreement, the Kalea Bay Towers project is putting an enormous strain on the infrastructure and traffic that is crippling and reducing the quality of life in Naples in general and in North Naples in particular. As voters and tax payers,we are asking the Board of Collier County Commissioners to oppose these alterations, which simply go beyond what is reasonable building separation and size for the area. It is our hope that the Commissioners will establish a vision for Naples that will make this generation and future generations enjoy living, working and recreating in Naples, Florida. 14Z1-4.e-t..44s Ck°( Ross J. Baiera Patricia A. Baiera GoodnerAngela From: CityViewSupport Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 5:51 PM To: ScottChris; CityViewSupport; McLean Matthew;JudiPalay@aol.com; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Cc: McLeanMatthew; KovenskyKenneth; FrenchJames; SolisAndy; GoodnerAngela; ClevelandSimon Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification - Addressed Importance: High Good Evening, Please be advised we have resolved the issue reported with this Approved Site Plan for Kalea Bay Project. Furthermore, please note the"Date Uploaded" date change which now reflects 5/12/2017 as reflected in the screen shots below as well as a view of the visible file from our CityView Web Portal. NOTE: Rotate view after opening document. Sorry for any inconvenience and the additional delay to view this online document. Hope you have a great weekend... © Thank You, Cheryl L. Soter Principal Planner/Support CityView Project Operations & Regulatory Management Division Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone 239-252-2937 - Fax 239-252-6368 cherylsoter@colliergov.net Visit our Website at: WWW.COLLIER6OV.NET r Co er C°14nty Upcoming Out of Office Dates: 126 .Documents&Images Date Uploaded Document Name 08/31/2016 submittal 1- Letter from(hns Scott Kalea Bay Revisions t©Phases 2-6 AR-5284.odf) 09/28/2016 Affidavit of Authorizauon/Ev'dence of Author=ty(Subrn!ttal 1 - Kale./Bar Affidavit of Authonzation-lay Westendorf-Prepared.pdf1 03/22/2017 Submittal 3• Cotohatchet Bay PUO Monitoring na Schedule-Revtsed,pdfl 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 -Kalga at$ianed Fee.worktheet.04f) 09/06/2016 Cover Letter/Narrative Statement(Submittal 1 -Kalea Bay Cover letter for SOPA Ph,,_ Pn;.,.r.•-..Fi 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Addressing Checklist approval•pdfj 09/21/2016 4licat on Form ISubmrtlal_l.Kalea Sty Phase 2-6.5DPA Apobc 1- Prenared.Atlfj 09/26/2016 Affidavit of Authorization/Evidence of Authority(Sub/metal 1 -Ka1ea Bay Affidavit of Authorization- Karen B•istloo-Preaared.odfl 08/31/2016 utomittal 1 - Kajea Bay Enviro TF wed 07-2016-odil 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Fire Flow Test.pdfl 09!06!2016 Ar s r. ..x•. Pl.n .rnittal - Kalea Bay Tower 5 Eittenor Elevations- Prepared.odf) 04/25'2016 warranty Deed/Proof qf Ownership(5u 't9: -tal_taitAtautiaisel deed OR 2904 PG 0172-Preoared.odfl 09/06/2016 Ar nh -s- .1 r.,,n PI.n .•u r.1 - K T. -.4 1 ..n P- Pr ordodf3 09/26!2016 Ar ho•r.r r.l t,=.n PI-n .mi ,.I -K:1 - T •x E .1 ,:t f1.:r Pi n• - PrtL>3rtS'00} 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Engineering Check;!»st 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Listed Species 12/15/2016 _.vi ,1 - :i .!_op, .4'_K%l ; - n.rRr '• ?f 08/31/2016 Submittal 1,-i cghatch t Bay PUD 2000-88 se`,tiement aareemenf.Ddfl 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - TIS 08/31/2015 mittal 1 -Water meter Elting Form 04!2812016 A•' : ..-crt.t♦ .at.i.t/K':t)lII4SsHall '1Oµµ I4,II.`{i5l!0 7 ly,i 11479. a a F - , fill t : If,1 i ir"G ft +r r k. ls,j 4 411, r ►5 I '41g- , 1 b II I.e� :a l ;1 1 ! . � T � Hit = II , .01 1Ii1. ,:1 i'11 ;Ii 1 WC-:, - 1 .. ,1 lith 1 ' # 1 n it 1 ,-?, iiiii 1, 'mil 111, li i ..,,.. From:ScottChris Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:54 PM To: CityViewSupport<CityViewSupport@colliergov.net> Cc: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Importance: High PL20160002242: When trying to open the approved site plan (5/11/2017)through the webportal,the following error message occurs. It works when I open directly through CityView, but we have Commissioners and interested members of the public that need to access this. Can you please see what is wrong and update as soon as possible?This is a high priority. Please advise when resolved.Thanks. 128 - Inspections - Documents&Images Date Uploaded Document Name 08/31/2016 submittal 1- Letter from Chris Scott Kalea Bay Revisions to Phases 2-6 AR-5284 09/28/2016 Affidavit of Authorization/Evidence of Authority (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Affidav Authorization -Jay Westendorf- Prepared.odf) 03/22/2017 Submittal 3 - Cocohatchee Bay PUD Monitoring Schedule - Revised.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Signed Fee Worksheet.pdf) 09/06/2026 Cover Letter/Narrative Statement(Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Cover letter for SDP Phase 2-6 - Prepared.pdfi 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Addressing Checklist approval.pdf) 09/21/2016 Application Form (Submittal 1 Kalea Bay Phase 2-6 SDPA Application - Preparec 09/26/2016 Affidavit of Authorization/Evidence of Authority (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Affidav Authorization - Karen Bishop - Prepared.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Enviro TE Updated 07-2016.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Fire Flow Test .pdf) 09/06/2016 Architectural Design Plan (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Tower 5 Exterior Elevations- Prepared.pdf) 09/26/2016 Warranty Deed/Proof of Ownership (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay West parcel deed ( 2904 PG 0172- Prepared.pdf) 09/06/2026 Architectural Design Plan (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Towers 2-4 Elevations SDP- Prepared.pdf) 04/26/2016 Architectural Design Plan (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay Towers 2- 5 Typical Floor Pla Prepared.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Engineering Checklist 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Listed Species 12/15/2016 Submittal 2 - PL20160002242 Kalea2-6 EmirRpt 2016-1202.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Cocohatchee Bay PUD 2000-88 settlement agreement.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 -TIS 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Water Meter Sizing Form 09/28/2016 Conservation Easement Documents (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay SFWM Release of Conservation Easement - Prepared.pdf) 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Cocohatchee Bay USACOE Permit 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Kalea Bay phase 2-6 Preserve Plan.pdfl 12/15/2016 Submittal 2 - Kalea Bay 2-6 SFWM 160119-22 Permit.pdfl 08/31/2016 Submittal 1 - Cocohatchee Bay PUD 2015 Monitoring Report.pdf) 09/21/2016 Boundary and Topo (Submittal 1 - Kalea Bndv&Topo Sheets 1 through 5 cert- Prepared.pdf) 05111/2017 APPROVED Site Plan (Submittal 4- P120160002242 KaleaCivi103 2017-0504-i 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf) 09/01/2016 Incomplete Submittal Letter(INC) 09/01/2016 Incomplete Submittal Letter(INC) 05/11/2017 APPROVED Landscape/Irrigation Plans(Submittal 3 - P120160002242 Kalea Ba} Landscape Plans - May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf1 09/02/2016 Incomplete Submittal Letter(INC) 09/06/2016 Submittal 1 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Landscape Plans 09/06/2016 Submittal 1 - Opinion of Probable Cost- Engineering &Utitilies 09/06/2016 PL Payment Slip 09/06/2016 Receipt for transaction: 2016-056747 09/06/2016 Check Overage Form (19/7A/7(11 F 1nciiffiripnry I Atter(TNSF) 129 http:,'tcvportal.colliergov.netfCityViewWebfPlanning;GetFile;J4O36643 P - , Collier County GMD Pu' FLORIDA • Sion In f Register Portal Home Property Search Portal Help Sorry, an error occurred while processing your request. Portal Home Links Home Property Search Pay Fees Permit Forms Planning Forms E-Permitting Guides Address Growth Management Division - Planning and Regulation 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone. (239) 252-2400 Powered by CityView Christopher 0.Scott,AICP, LEED-AP Planning Manager-Development Review 239.252.2460 From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:48 PM To: RosenblumBrett<BrettRosenblum@colliergov.net>; ScottChris<ChrisScottc colliergov.net>; IsonSara <SaralsonPcolliergov.net> Subject: Fwd: Request for Immediate Notification Please see what the issues with the files update and advise when they are visible. May need help fromCV support. Sent from my iPhone 130 Begin forwarded message: From: SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net> Date: May 12, 2017 at 3:45:23 PM EDT To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com;direedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguIdaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, 131 Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er Corsnty Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: Klatzkowleff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, 132 Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4— PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 112017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. r Comity Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director- Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 133 From: OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock <Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when 134 SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(�Dgmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdianeqmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@a,colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head 135 Co er Co1411I ty Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock <Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." 136 I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane(cr�gmail.com judipalayt?a.aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 137 GoodnerAngela From: ScottChris Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 4:03 PM To: McLeanMatthew; RosenblumBrett; !sonSara Cc: SolisAndy Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Attachments: APPROVED Site Plan (Submittal 4) PL20160002242 KaleaCivi103_2017-0504 - May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf There appears to be an issue with the CityView Webportal. I've asked CityView Support to fix the issue and advise once complete. I've attached the approved Site Plan for reference—it's a large file(32MB). Christopher 0.Scott,AICP, LEED-AP Planning Manager-Development Review 239.252.2460 From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:48 PM To: RosenblumBrett<BrettRosenblum@colliergov.net>; ScottChris <ChrisScott@colliergov.net>; IsonSara <Saralson@colliergov.net> Subject: Fwd: Request for Immediate Notification Please see what the issues with the files update and advise when they are visible. May need help fromCV support. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: SolisAndy <AndySolis(a�colliergov.net> Date: May 12, 2017 at 3:45:23 PM EDT To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean(a�colliergov.net> Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! 138 From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com;direedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<iamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence, associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er C aunty Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive 139 Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4— PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 112017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. 140 Co er County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director- Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock <Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, 141 As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; Strain Mark; BosiMichael; McLean Matthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane(a gmail.com 142 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdianeCa)gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkisonacolliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head C,o r Caurity Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: Klatzkowieff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew <MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock <Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@kmail.com>;Carl Stendahi <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron 143 <direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay ruonowdiane(a.amail.com iudipalayna.aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 144 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela on behalf of SolisAndy Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:45 PM To: McLeanMatthew Subject: FW: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Hello, Matt: Commissioner Solis has the same question—there is a site plan dated 5/11 listed at CityView, but there's an error with the file so it is not viewable. Could you share that with the Commissioner or send an updated link to CityView? Or let us know where else to view the document? Thanks so much for your help with this! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County District 2 Phone: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! From:JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; ralfbrookes@gmail.com;dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com; djreedcaron@icloud.com Cc:SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, 145 Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence,associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er County Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, 146 Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA)application P120160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er Cminty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 147 From: OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc:KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressv@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalavPaol.com>;SolisAndy <AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<lamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@>gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to 148 acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdianeqmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdianena gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM,WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@collierqov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head C.D er County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) 149 www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLean Matthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalav@aol.com>;AndvSolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane(cr�gmail.com judipalay(a aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 150 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 151 GoodnerAngela From: JudiPalay@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:36 AM To: McLeanMatthew; ralfbrookes@gmail.com; dacressy@gmail.com; cps2004@comcast.net; brad@taxis-usa.com; djreedcaron@icloud.com Cc: SolisAndy; OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick; KlatzkowJeff; StrainMark; FrenchJames; BosiMichael; Dwight E. Brock; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Thank you for this information. Somewhere in the files, is there a corrected SDP showing the now approved distances between the buildings- or did I just not see that? Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 5/12/2017 10:29:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net writes: Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence, associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Calker Comity Matt McLean,P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive 152 Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11,2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: Klatzkowleff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>; OchsLeo <LeoOchs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment(SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivi103_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3— PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 112017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. 153 Co er Co"ty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From:OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04,2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>;Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy <AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick <NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA P120160002242(Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5)are approved. 154 Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: Klatzkow]eff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 155 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison,P.E. Department Head COCciutitY Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16,2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron<djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;Andysolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison 156 Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County "staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 157 GoodnerAngela From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:30 AM To: Ralf Brookes; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay Cc: SolisAndy; OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick; KlatzkowJeff; StrainMark; FrenchJames; BosiMichael; Dwight E. Brock; Diane Rupnow Subject: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Attachments: SDP Approval Letter.pdf; Exhibit A- 13 items (Applicant O&M).pdf; Util Checklist- 10-06-2006 new new checklist.pdf; Memorandum- Kalea Bay(4-28-17).pdf Concerned Citizens, Ms. Rupnow requested notification of the approval for Kalea Bay which was provided to her yesterday. Below is the correspondence, associated files and link to approval documents for your records. If you need additional information, please let me know. Co er County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 From: McLeanMatthew Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net>;OchsLeo <Leoochs@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist 158 All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CitvViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From: OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressv@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl<cps2004t comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy<AndvSolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification 159 On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.corn 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdianec gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison(aiicolliergov.net>wrote: Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Pa lay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison, P.E. Department Head Co er County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064 (Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow(«lcolliergov.net>;OchsLeo<LeoOchsPcolliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael 160 <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl <cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner,Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director,Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County"staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 161 GoodnerAngela From: OchsLeo Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:22 PM To: GoodnerAngela Subject: FW: Request for Immediate Notification Attachments: SDP Approval Letter.pdf; Exhibit A- 13 items (Applicant O&M).pdf; Util Checklist - 10-06-2006 new new checklist.pdf; Memorandum- Kalea Bay(4-28-17).pdf FYI Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:21 PM To: Diane Rupnow Cc: KlatzkowJeff; BosiMichael; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick; OchsLeo Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Ms. Rupnow, Per your request for notification of approval,today the Collier County Growth Management Department approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is a staff memorandum associated with the Kalea Bay development. If you need additional information, please let me know. Cofer County Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 163 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-8279 Fax: 239-252-6945 From: OchsLeo Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:16 PM To: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com>; WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net> Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net>; StrainMark<MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net>; Ralf Brookes <ralfbrookes@Rmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy<dacressy@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <direedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;SolisAndy<AndySolis@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames <jamesfrench@colliergov.net>;CasalanguidaNick<NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Dear Ms.Rupnow, As requested,the interim Growth Management Department Director will notify you if/when a request for amendments to SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) are approved. Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:58 AM To: WilkisonDavid Cc: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew; Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron; Judi Palay; SolisAndy; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Re: Request for Immediate Notification On March 16th I sent the above email to County staff asking for immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff" I also requested that you acknowledge receipt of this request. David Wilkison was the only County staff person to acknowledge my request and I've been told that he no longer works for the County. I am asking that the County Manager or the County Attorney acknowledge receipt of this message and agree to immediately notify me if/when the amendment is approved. Diane Rupnow rupn owdi ane(af umai I.com 402 580-1545 Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM, WilkisonDavid<DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>wrote: 164 Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Pa lay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison,P.E. Department Head et' Cou34ty Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064(Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkowPcolliergov.net>; OchsLeo<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>;StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael <MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; McLeanMatthew<MatthewMcLean@colliergov.net> Cc: Ralf Brookes<ralfbrookes@gmail.com>; Dwight E. Brock<Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; David Cressy <dacressy@gmail.com>; Carl Stendahl<cps2004@comcast.net>; Brad Schiffer AIA<brad@taxis-usa.com>; Donna Reed Caron <djreedcaron@icloud.com>;Judi Palay<JudiPalay@aol.com>;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean 165 Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County"staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request. do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing. 166 GoodnerAngela From: OchsLeo Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 3:41 PM To: SolisAndy Cc: KlatzkowJeff; CasalanguidaNick Subject: FW: Kalea Bay SDPA approval PL20160002242 Attachments: SDP Approval Letter.pdf; Exhibit A - 13 items (Applicant O&M).pdf; Util Checklist- 10-06-2006 new new checklist.pdf; Memorandum- Kalea Bay(4-28-17).pdf Importance: High Commissioner, Attached please find the just released staff approval of the latest Kalea Bay SDP Amendment application. Your constituents will soon have knowledge as well. We can discuss further at your convenience. Thanks. VR, Leo Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Collier County Manager leoochs@colliergov.net 239.252.8383 From: McLeanMatthew Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 3:29 PM To: CasalanguidaNick Cc: OchsLeo; KlatzkowJeff; FrenchJames; BosiMichael; ScottChris Subject: Kalea Bay SDPA approval PL20160002242 Importance: High Nick, Today,the Development Review Division approved the latest Kalea Bay Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) application PL20160002242. Attached are the following approval documents: • SDPA approval Letter • Exhibit A • Utility Checklist All of the associated application documents including the approved site plans—Submittal 4—PL20160002242 KaleaCivil03_2017-0504-May 11 2017 10-35-56.pdf and approved landscape plans—Submittal 3—PL20160002242 Kalea Bay Landscape Plans—May 11 2017 10-49-31.pdf can be downloaded at the following public portal link http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Planning/Locator by entering the application number PL20160002242 and clicking the documents and images tab. Also attached is the memorandum for Kalea Bay. If you need additional information, please let me know. 167 Ca er C4314 rcty Matt McLean, P.E. Collier County Growth Management Department Director-Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239-252-8279 Fax:239-252-6945 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing. 168 GoodnerAngela Subject: Mark Strain Location: BCC Conference Room, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34112 Start: Fri 5/5/2017 1:30 PM End: Fri 5/5/2017 2:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndy Required Attendees: Mark P. Strain (markstrain@colliergov.net); Andrew I. Solis(ASolis@cohenlaw.com) Categories: Commission Chambers Kalea Bay review 169 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Tuesday,April 18,2017 1:33 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Bentley Village topics, per Frank Halas • Traffic—especially Immokalee Rd and 41 • Bridge project—still! He says people ask him all the time when Vanderbilt Drive will be open again (and he seemed flabbergasted when I said it would be more than a year) • Kalea Bay • What is the potential build-out for Collier County? He mentioned a UF study that suggested 1 million. I will see if I can find that. He said he would mention more to you when he saw you this afternoon! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax:239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 170 GoodnerAngela From: JudiPalay@aol.com Sent: Friday,April 14, 2017 6:27 PM To: SolisAndy; rupnowdiane@gmail.com Cc: GoodnerAngela;jikisoc@gmail.com; nancyvstraus@gmail.com; ngh0031@aol.com; ssnyder2@columbus.rr.com Subject: Re:April 11th BCC Meeting Thank you. Will look forward to your response. If we can answer any questions or fill in any gaps, please feel free to let us know. just a note to tell you that our group also includes members of 10 or so communities in this Cocohatchee Bay area also affected by this. Happy reading! Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 In a message dated 4/14/2017 6:21:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, AndySolis@colliergov.net writes: Dear Glen Eden Owners, Thank you for your emails. It was unfortunate that Judy and the rest of the group were not allowed to speak their mind at the meeting on Tuesday. As you will remember, I argued the point with the County Attorney and the Chairman. The County Attorney advised the Chairman not to allow the discussion to proceed and the Chairman relied on that advice. I do not necessarily agree with that opinion but had to respect that the Chairman has the gavel and runs the meeting. I understand your concern regarding changes to the SDP's and I have asked for a full review of where the current SDP applications stand, how decisions are being made, and whether the terms of the Settlement Agreement are being considered in that process. I spoke at length with Brad Schiffer this morning regarding the SDP approval issues and have advised him of this. I have also requested and been provided the transcripts relating to the litigation with the developer and approval of the Settlement Agreement. It is over 800 pages in length. I will be reviewing this over the weekend to understand the history of and intent behind the Settlement Agreement. I will let all of you know next week what I have found out. Have a good weekend. Andy Solis, Esq. Collier County Commissioner, District 2 171 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6946 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Diane Rupnow[mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 5:41 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: April 11th BCC Meeting Dear Commissioner Solis, It was disappointing that we were not allowed to speak at the BCC meeting yesterday. We hosted an informational meeting at our clubhouse April 2nd and 91 constituents from 10 residential communities were in attendance.We decided collectively to attend the BCC meeting to ask for a public hearing.We want this put on a BCC agenda so what has happened with Kalea Bay's Building 1 will not also happen with Buildings 2--5. Building 1 is already built and County staff made decisions they should not have made. Unfortunately, those bad decisions can't be fixed because the building is almost finished. Now there is an amendment under review by County "staff"for Buildings 2--5. More bad decisions are going to be finalized and approved.We want the Commissioners to tell County Staff to NOT approve that amendment. We think this should be discussed among Commissioners WITH the community BEFORE the amendment is approved. We went to the April 11th BCC meeting to inform our County Commissioners that terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement have been violated. 172 Paragraph 2 states ". . .This Agreement and Release expressly states the acceptable deviation in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control. County "staff" allowed the Building 1 SDP to be changed making the width of that building and all the other buildings to be increased 50'from 260'to 310'. That substantial change should have been done with the same formalities as the Settlement Agreement and gone to the BCC for approval. Paragraph 4 states that the County will expedite the review of three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. Those SDP's gave detailed descriptions of the buildings at Kalea Bay so that County staff, Commissioners and neighbors who are stakeholders in the final result could envision what the development would look like. County"staff" changed Building 1 SDP and allowed Building 1 to be slid one-third closer to Aqua, reducing the buffer from 166'to 106' That is a substantial change to the SDP approved in the Settlement Agreement and that change request should have gone to you, the BCC. The County "staff" had already absurdly interpreted a footnote in the PUD to enable the developer to put these buildings closer together than 200 feet--the minimum building separation between buildings 200' tall Only recently did we discover that the approved SDP had the following distances between buildings: 153', 126', 127' and 341'. There was supposed to be a lake between buildings 4 and 5 making the 341' distance, BUT the SDP has been changed by county staff and that lake has been removed.Those distances between buildings were shown in a depiction and would have required an observer to use a scale to figure out--pretty deceptive! NOW, since County " staff' has removed the lake and allowed the buildings to be 50'wider,the distances between those massive towers will be: 109', 165', 100' and 100'. We object to having those buildings that close together making what will appear like a wall of concrete blocking our western horizon FOREVER! We feel that County"staff" should not have autonomous authority and unlimited discretion to reduce building separations as much as the developer wants as long as the buildings have common architectural theme and are skewed.Whoever approved this should be held accountable and not remain anonymous! 173 We object to County " staff" being allowed to make decisions that make drastic changes to SDPs that were approved in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement. The County Attorney says that we have to wait until the amendment for Buildings 2--5 is approved and then file an Administrative Appeal which will cost us over$2,000 to file plus attorney fees. Why should citizens have to pay over$2,000 to get County Commissioners to review County "staff" decisions? Over$900 of the required fees are for noticing the public.Why should we have to pay to notice ourselves?? Clearly you, the highest governing body in Collier County, have been circumvented and deprived of information. How can you be self-correcting and "right a wrong" if information is kept from you? We ask that the Board of County Commissioners enforce the terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement. Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 174 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 5:54 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Kalea Bay Hey,Andy: Here is what I wrote this afternoon to Diane Rupnow—I had sent a shorter version to everyone else who wrote you yesterday: Thank you for your email and detailed list of concerns. Commissioner Solis asked me to let you know that he is connecting with the County Attorney to explore what is the best option for you and your group of concerned neighbors. Also,Andy has packed up all the minutes and agreements for a little light reading over the weekend. We will be in touch as we get more guidance and certainty on that process. Let me know if you have any questions in the meantime, and, as always,thank you for being an engaged citizen. Here are the email addresses for each of the people who have contacted you since the meeting Tuesday on Kalea Bay: jikisoc@gmail.com, judipalay@aol.com, nancyvstraus@gmail.com, ngh0031@aol.com, ssnyder2@columbus.rr.com, rupnowdiane@gmail.com, Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 175 GoodnerAngela From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Friday,April 14, 2017 12:04 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: FW:Wed pm-- Regarding Kalea Bay As discussed. Jeffrey A.Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239)252-2614 From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Thursday,April 13, 2017 7:34 AM To: 'JudiPalay@aol.com' Subject: RE: Wed pm--Regarding Kalea Bay Ms. Palay: The Public Comment portion of the agenda is entitled"Public Comments on General Topics Not on the Current or Future Agenda." The purpose of this portion of the agenda is to allow the public to comment on anything they wish except matters that are on, or will be on,the Board's agenda. I fully expect this matter will be on a future Board agenda. At this point in time the Site Development Plan is still under review by staff.No decision has been made. If and when the Site Development Plan is approved by staff the community will be notified, at which point if there is any objection the matter can be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. Having speakers comment on this process before approval of the Site Development Plan is finalized is contrary to the procedure, is unfair to the Developer, and could ultimately lead to a very poor result in Court for both the • County and the community. You are of course free to speak to any of the Commissioners in private about your concern. As an aside I was intimately involved in all aspects of the Settlement Agreement, and I can assure you that if and when the Site Development Plan is finalized, it will be fully consistent with that Agreement. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Collier County Attorney (239)252-2614 From: JudiPalay@aol.com [mailto:JudiPalay@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday,April 12, 2017 6:26 PM To: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow(a),colliergov.net> Subject: Wed pm--Regarding Kalea Bay Dear Attorney Klatzkow, 176 Yesterday, you blocked more than a dozen Collier County residents from speaking to our commissioners. They wished to alert them to changes that were made to Kalea Bay Building one-- and since no one from the community was noticed re the changes,those changes are forever. And, now, since no one objected to those, you know that the same will be expected for buildings 2-5. It seems that we citizens are not playing on the same field as this developer. While you may not wish to tangle with him, he is taking advantage of us. We have to live the consequences of his actions. As I said yesterday,this Agreement is not a great one, but we are abiding by its stipulations and so must he. It states that he will not sue the county commissioners but you are allowing him to make us the targets and at an unnecessary expense to us when our role is not that of the enforcer of said Agreement. We are the public who are supposed to be protected. Our elected officials are supposed to know, follow and ensure that the rules are followed. When the commissioners are deliberately circumvented and are unaware of the deviations, we have a right to tell them. Building one was not on the agenda and will never be. PLease let me know how you intend to rectify yesterday's hurt to our Cocohatchee Bay residents. I feel strongly that we have been "injured" by a decision that should not have been made. Thank you- Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 177 GoodnerAngela From: Nancy Straus <nancyvstraus@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 10:11 AM To: Sol i sA n d rew Subject: Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Commissioner Solis, We live at 14592 Glen Eden Drive Naples. We have a lovely, peaceful, natural sense of place. The Kalea Bay development is in many ways altering that sense of place and creating a Miami Beach out of Vanderbilt Drive. Please drive here and see for yourself what 5 buildings 100 feet apart will create. Please Commissioner,we urge you to tell the County Planning staff to uphold the settlement agreement containing the approved site development on Kalea Bay.Why are we waiting for the new changes to be approved by county planning staff before we can move on? We urge you to take a look and see what a wall of concrete condos will do to lovely Vanderbilt Drive! Thank you Nancy Straus nancyvstraus@gmail.com 178 GoodnerAngela From: Ngh0031 <ngh0031@aol.com> Sent: Thursday,April 13, 2017 8:56 AM To: SolisAndrew Subject: KALEA BAY SDPA Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed I reside in Glen Eden on the Lakes. The Kalea Bay project is under construction on Vanderbilt Drive in North Naples, with the first tower almost complete and the remaining four towers to be built. A Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) is currently under review by Collier Planning, showing buildings with a separation between buildings that would be one-half the required minimum distance (i.e., a separation of 100 feet measured between towers, and 72 feet measured between parking structures). It is also our understanding that the first tower is at least 50 feet wider than the approved SDP. If the remaining towers were to be built as proposed in the SDPA, the results would be a huge concrete barrier to light and air and view. On April 11th, a group of concerned citizens living in the Vanderbilt Drive area attended a Board of County Commissioners meeting to express concerns over these proposed revisions to the approved plans. Sixteen residents signed up to speak during the Public Comment portion of the meeting. After hearing the first speaker, the County Attorney advised the Board that no further public comments on this issue should be allowed. The rationale given was that procedure required that the Site Development Plan Amendment be approved by staff, after which an administrative appeal could be filed. In our opinion, a review and decision on the Site Development Plan Amendment as submitted should not be left solely to staff, but should be considered in a public hearing before the full Board of County Commissioners to allow input and discussion from all parties. These changes are significant, impactful and would be detrimental to all aspects of this area of Vanderbilt drive. We respectfully ask that a public hearing on this issue be held. Henry & Barbara Taylor 14599 Glen Eden Drive Naples, Fl. 34110 179 GoodnerAngela From: JudiPalay@aol.com Sent: Wednesday,April 12, 2017 11:04 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Wed pm-- Regarding Kalea Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed I wanted you to know the truth re our attempt to speak at the Open Session. Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 From: JudiPalay@aol.com To: JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net Sent: 4/12/2017 6:25:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: Wed pm--Regarding Kalea Bay Dear Attorney Klatzkow, Yesterday, you blocked more than a dozen Collier County residents from speaking to our commissioners. They wished to alert them to changes that were made to Kalea Bay Building one-- and since no one from the community was noticed re the changes, those changes are forever. And, now, since no one objected to those, you know that the same will be expected for buildings 2-5. It seems that we citizens are not playing on the same field as this developer. While you may not wish to tangle with him, he is taking advantage of us. We have to live the consequences of his actions. As I said yesterday, this Agreement is not a great one, but we are abiding by its stipulations and so must he. It states that he will not sue the county commissioners but you are allowing him to make us the targets and at an unnecessary expense to us when our role is not that of the enforcer of said Agreement. We are the public who are supposed to be protected. Our elected officials are supposed to know, follow and ensure that the rules are followed. When the commissioners are deliberately circumvented and are unaware of the deviations, we have a right to tell them. Building one was not on the agenda and will never be. PLease let me know how you intend to rectify yesterday's hurt to our Cocohatchee Bay residents. I feel strongly that we have been "injured" by a decision that should not have been made. Thank you- Judi Palay 239-513-9141 805-824-6615 180 GoodnerAngela From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,April 12, 2017 5:41 PM To: S of i sAnd rew Subject: April 11th BCC Meeting Dear Commissioner Solis, It was disappointing that we were not allowed to speak at the BCC meeting yesterday. We hosted an informational meeting at our clubhouse April 2nd and 91 constituents from 10 residential communities were in attendance. We decided collectively to attend the BCC meeting to ask for a public hearing. We want this put on a BCC agenda so what has happened with Kalea Bay's Building 1 will not also happen with Buildings 2--5. Building 1 is already built and County staff made decisions they should not have made. Unfortunately, those bad decisions can't be fixed because the building is almost finished. Now there is an amendment under review by County "staff' for Buildings 2--5. More bad decisions are going to be finalized and approved. We want the Commissioners to tell County Staff to NOT approve that amendment. We think this should be discussed among Commissioners WITH the community BEFORE the amendment is approved. We went to the April 11th BCC meeting to inform our County Commissioners that terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement have been violated. Paragraph 2 states ". . .This Agreement and Release expressly states the acceptable deviation in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control. County "staff" allowed the Building 1 SDP to be changed making the width of that building and all the other buildings to be increased 50' from 260' to 310'. That substantial change should have been done with the same formalities as the Settlement Agreement and pone to the BCC for approval. Paragraph 4 states that the County will expedite the review of three SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge. Those SDP's gave detailed descriptions of the buildings at Kalea Bay so that County staff, Commissioners and neighbors who are stakeholders in the final result could envision what the development would look like. County "staff" changed Building 1 SDP and allowed Building 1 to be slid one-third closer to Aqua, reducing the buffer from 166' to 106' That is a substantial change to the SDP approved in the Settlement Agreement and that change request should have gone to you, the BCC. 181 The County "staff' had already absurdly interpreted a footnote in the PUD to enable the developer to put these buildings closer together than 200 feet-- the minimum building separation between buildings 200' tall Only recently did we discover that the approved SDP had the following distances between buildings: 153', 126', 127' and 341'. There was supposed to be a lake between buildings 4 and 5 making the 341' distance, BUT the SDP has been changed by county staff and that lake has been removed. Those distances between buildings were shown in a depiction and would have required an observer to use a scale to figure out--pretty deceptive! NOW, since County " staff' has removed the lake and allowed the buildings to be 50' wider, the distances between those massive towers will be: 109', 165', 100' and 100'. We object to having those buildings that close together making what will appear like a wall of concrete blocking our western horizon FOREVER! We feel that County "staff' should not have autonomous authority and unlimited discretion to reduce building separations as much as the developer wants as long as the buildings have common architectural theme and are skewed. Whoever approved this should be held accountable and not remain anonymous! We object to County " staff' being allowed to make decisions that make drastic changes to SDPs that were approved in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement. The County Attorney says that we have to wait until the amendment for Buildings 2--5 is approved and then file an Administrative Appeal which will cost us over$2,000 to file plus attorney fees. Why should citizens have to pay over$2,000 to get County Commissioners to review County "staff' decisions? Over$900 of the required fees are for noticing the public. Why should we have to pay to notice ourselves?? Clearly you, the highest governing body in Collier County, have been circumvented and deprived of information. How can you be self-correcting and "right a wrong" if information is kept from you? We ask that the Board of County Commissioners enforce the terms of the 2008 Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement. 182 GoodnerAngela From: Jim & Kitty Shaw <jikisoc@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,April 12,2017 11:34 AM To: SolisAndrew; GoodnerAngela Subject: Kalea Bay Towers Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed To:Andy Solis During the Public Comment portion of the April 11 BCC meeting,a graphical depiction was presented showing a to-scale representation of the height,width and spacing of the proposed five towers at Kalea Bay.When I saw that depiction,a red flag popped up in my mind.During my engineering career,I worked with a design team creating complex medical diagnostic systems.Part of the development process,required by FDA,is called"Hazard Analysis".During HA,a multi-discipline team picks apart the entire system design looking for hidden,unintended consequences that could lead to disastrous events.This is a lengthy,rigorous and painful process,but extremely effective.It caused me to wonder if this process was considered when the towers became taller,wider and closer together. Anyone who has walked the streets of NY City on a windy day can attest to the"wind tunnel effect".This occurs when moving air hits tall, closely spaced buildings and is funneled through the space between the buildings,increasing wind velocity and causing turbulence.This attached article explains wind tunnel effect in greater detail:http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/the-pulse/79275-the-science-of- wind-tunnels-where-and-why-those-harsh-winds-strike-Given that we are situated in an area prone to tropical storms with high wind velocities,and the tower"wall"faces the brunt of powerful on-shore winds,and given that many Kalea Bay residents may have mobility challenges,the recent"tweaks"to buildings'width and separation may have unintentionally created a potential future hazard to many tower residents. I am not aware of any tower complex in the Naples area with building dimensions and spacing similar to that of the Kalea Bay plan.If there are no comparable complexes from which to draw conclusions as to wind safety,and there is no study to show the recent plan changes do not create a hazard,should the CCB then require the developer to conduct a wind effect study?After all,if the current development plan is approved without such a study,and a wind-caused injury occurs,does the County share in the responsibility for that injury? Thank you, James D Shaw 841 Carrick Bend Cir.#201 Naples,FL 34110 Other relevant link:http://www.iawe.org/Proceedings/5EACWE/092.pdf 184 GoodnerAngela From: Susan Snyder <ssnyder2@columbus.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 10:02 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Today's Commissioners' Meeting Dear Commissioner Solis, I live in District 2 and voted for you, with the hope that you would represent those of us who live in your district. I am deeply disturbed that at the Collier County Commissioners meeting today (April 11, 2017), the United States Constitutional right, as described in the First Amendment (ie. Freedom of Speech), was denied by county leaders to sixteen persons who live in District 2. The agenda item for which we intended to participate was specifically titled, "Public Comments on General Topics Not On The Current Or Future Agenda." Our topic was not on today's agenda, and to our knowledge it is not scheduled to be included on a future agenda. In fact, the purpose of our wanting to speak today was to request that our concern be added to a future agenda. Below is the exact verbiage I intended to use today, had I been allowed to speak. "Good morning Commissioners. For the record, my name is Susan Snyder and I am a registered voter in Collier County. My address is 17 Bluebill Ave, which is located at the north end of Vanderbilt Beach. I've been an active member of the community for 17 years and have closely followed development in the county. My concern today is that I've learned County Commissioners have not been informed by County staff of deviations from the Site Development Plans passed with the Cocohatchee Bay Settlement Agreement. It is the function of county staff to provide Commissioners with all the information needed to make informed administrative decisions that affect the quality of life of the citizens of Collier County. By not informing Commissioners and instead making what I consider unjustified decisions that disregard both the Cocohatchee PUD and the Site Development Plan for the Kalea Bay Towers community, staff's behavior is unethical, unprofessional, and irresponsible. The community at large will be affected by these staff decisions. I would ask Commissioners to set a date for a public hearing to discuss specifics of the Cocohatchee PUD agreement and the Site Development Plan for the Kalea Bay Towers community. Those legal documents give specific dimensions and other specifications regarding the Kalea Bay project. Twice in 2015, Lodge Abbot Associates went to Collier County Commissioners to try to reopen the settlement. The Commissioners said "No." Now it appears that this development company has gone directly to county staff and circumnavigated the Commissioners. Thank you for considering a public hearing for the community to have input." 185 GoodnerAngela From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 28,2017 6:30 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Re: Please Attend April 2nd Meeting at 4:00 Please tell Commissioner Solis that we are disappointed that he will not be able to attend Sunday's meeting. Many of his constituents will be present and the discussion will be one he should want to hear. I'm hopeful his plans change and he finds he can give us one hour. Please tell him our visitor's gate will be up starting at 3:30 in case he finds time to come. Thanks for getting back to me today as you said you would. Diane • Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane ga,gm a i l.c o m 402 580-1545 On Tue,Mar 28, 2017 at 4:39 PM, SolisAndrew<AndrewSolis@colliergov.net>wrote: Hi,Diane: Nice to talk with you this morning—I was sorry to hear about your eye trouble, but happy to hear that you've begun to mend. I had a chance to grab Andy following the commission meeting this morning and learned that he had met with staff and has some documents to review concerning the placement of the buildings. When he has completed that review,he'll send you a letter with his findings. Regarding the Sunday meeting, he regrets he is already obligated and will be unable to attend. He'll try to get his email to you before that meeting. Thanks, rest your eye now, and have a wonderful night! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 186 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdianeAgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday,March 28, 2017 12:03 PM To: SolisAndrew<AndrewSolis(aiicolliergov.net> Subject: Fwd: Please Attend April 2nd Meeting at 4:00 You were right, Angela! I am forwarding the message with the wrong address that went out 4 days ago. I'm not doing so well with impaired vision! Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Forwarded message From: Diane Rupnow<rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:19 PM Subject: Please Attend April 2nd Meeting at 4:00 To: AndySolice(a,colliergov.net Dear Commissioner Solis: I am asking that you attend an informational meeting regarding the Kalea Bay project and the Cocohatchee Bay Gold Course. The attached flyer has gone out to residents in Glen Eden on the Lakes and is being distributed to neighboring communities. You are our District 2 Commissioner and we would like you to represent our public interest in this matter. Please let me know if you agree to come. Thanks! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 187 GoodnerAngela From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:03 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Fwd: Please Attend April 2nd Meeting at 4:00 Attachments: Rev.April 2nd Flyer.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed You were right, Angela! I am forwarding the message with the wrong address that went out 4 days ago. I'm not doing so well with impaired vision! Diane Rupnow rupnowdianec2I gmail.com 402 580-1545 Forwarded message From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane(aiigmail.com> Date: Fri,Mar 24, 2017 at 1:19 PM Subject: Please Attend April 2nd Meeting at 4:00 To:AndySolice@colliergov.net Dear Commissioner Solis: I am asking that you attend an informational meeting regarding the Kalea Bay project and the Cocohatchee Bay Gold Course. The attached flyer has gone out to residents in Glen Eden on the Lakes and is being distributed to neighboring communities. You are our District 2 Commissioner and we would like you to represent our public interest in this matter. Please let me know if you agree to come. Thanks! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 188 GoodnerAngela From: Diane Rupnow <rupnowdiane@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 28,2017 12:00 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: Please attend April 2nd meeting Attachments: Rev.April 2nd Flyer.docx Dear Commissioner Solis On Sunday,April 2nd at 4:00 we are hosting an informational meeting about Kalea Bay and the Golf Course parcel for Glen Eden residents. Homeowners in neighboring communities will also be attending as will our attorney, Ralf Brookes. We would like you also to attend this meeting so you can hear from constituents and provide any information you may have. Please see attached flyer. We will be setting up for this event on Saturday p.m. Please rsvp to let me know if you will attend. Thanks! Diane Rupnow Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 189 KALEA BAY TOWERS WILL HAVE A DIRECT OBSERVABLE IMPACT ON THIS ENTIRE COMMUNITY FOREVER! We have a small window of time before buildings 2 through 5 are permitted. At this time, they have not been approved. • This project does not match the Site Development Plan (SDP). • Buildings do not meet the SDP on the minimum building separation. • Buildings are now 50' wider than in the SDP. • Building 1 is 60' closer to Aqua than shown in the approved plan. We may be able to stop construction of buildings 2-5, and make them conform to Collier County building codes and the Cocohatchee PUD Settlement Agreement. • Also, come to hear the latest on the Golf Course Parcel! April 2nd (Sunday) — 4:00 p.m. Clubhouse You will want to attend this meeting at the Glen Eden Clubhouse to learn how we may be able to make the county enforce their building codes. Attorney Ralf Brooks will be there to explain our options. Diane Rupnow, Judi Palay, David Cressy and Carl Stendahl GoodnerAngela From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday, March 22,2017 7:09 AM To: SolisAndrew Subject: RE: County"staff" Absolutely, I had called a week or so ago and talked with Angela about this as well. I will call Angela this morning and arrange a time that is good for you. I have a set of plans that show graphically what is at question and it would be helpful if I could show those to you. Thanks, Mark 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: SolisAndrew Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 6:34 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Fw: County"staff' Mark, Could you please give me a call either tomorrow or Thursday to discuss the issue raised by Diane Rupnow. I would like to understand the process she is referring to. Thanks. Andy Solis, Esq. Commissioner,District 2 Collier County Board of Commissioners District Office: 239.252.8602 mobile: 239.315.6080 fax: 239.252.6946 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 3:19 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: FW: County"staff' 191 Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Thursday,March 16, 2017 10:52 AM To: 'rupnowdiane@gmail.com'<rupnowdianec ,gmail.com> Subject: FW: County"staff' Good morning,Diane—I hope you are well! I just got your email, below, forwarded to me. It seems like Andy's address wasn't quite right, so it didn't get delivered to his in-box. In any case, he is out of town this week, and will review your email next week when he returns. Thanks—have a great day, enjoying our little bit of cool weather! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:51 PM To: AndvSolice@colliergov.net Cc: SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna<DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; TaylorPenny <PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: County"staff' Building five Kalea Bay towers 310'wide and only 100' apart will have a direct and observable negative impact on all of us FOREVER. I find it troubling that important decisions are made by County"staff'with complete anonymity and;therefore,no accountability or recourse. 192 Since the separation of high-rise buildings is important to the ambience of an entire community,could we obtain a written review of the staff process to allow the administrative reduction to one half of the intended minimum separation? Also,we would like to know what staff members are responsible for the administrative review on this issue. Thank you! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@u,gmail.com 402 580-1545 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 193 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 3:20 PM To: SolisAndrew Subject: FW: County"staff" Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:GoodnerAngela Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:52 AM To: 'rupnowdiane@gmail.com' Subject: FW:County"staff Good morning, Diane—I hope you are well! I just got your email, below,forwarded to me. It seems like Andy's address wasn't quite right,so it didn't get delivered to his in-box. In any case, he is out of town this week,and will review your email next week when he returns. Thanks—have a great day, enjoying our little bit of cool weather! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax:239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:51 PM To:AndySoliceCc@colliergov.net Cc:SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny <PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: County"staff" Building five Kalea Bay towers 310'wide and only 100' apart will have a direct and observable negative impact on all of us FOREVER. 194 I find it troubling that important decisions are made by County"staff'with complete anonymity and;therefore,no accountability or recourse. Since the separation of high-rise buildings is important to the ambience of an entire community,could we obtain a written review of the staff process to allow the administrative reduction to one half of the intended minimum separation? Also,we would like to know what staff members are responsible for the administrative review on this issue. Thank you! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdiane@gmail.com 402 580-1545 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 195 GoodnerAngela From: WilkisonDavid Sent: Thursday, March 16,2017 3:50 PM To: Diane Rupnow; KlatzkowJeff;OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew Cc: Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy; Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay, SolisAndrew; FrenchJames;CasalanguidaNick Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S.Wilkison,P.E. Department Head Co erg Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 239.252.6064 (Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday,March 16, 2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo ; StrainMark ; WilkisonDavid ; BosiMichael ;McLeanMatthew Cc: Ralf Brookes ; Dwight E. Brock ; David Cressy ; Carl Stendahl ; Brad Schiffer AIA ; Donna Reed Caron ; Judi Palay;AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner,Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director, Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5) gets approved by County"staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, 196 Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 197 GoodnerAngela From: WilkisonDavid Sent: Thursday, March 16,2017 3:50 PM To: Diane Rupnow; KlatzkowJeff;OchsLeo; StrainMark; BosiMichael; McLeanMatthew Cc: Ralf Brookes; Dwight E. Brock; David Cressy;Carl Stendahl; Brad Schiffer AIA; Donna Reed Caron;Judi Palay; SolisAndrew; FrenchJames; CasalanguidaNick Subject: RE: Request for Immediate Notification Hi Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Palay, The Growth Management Department acknowledges receipt of your request. The Growth Management Department will notify you if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2-5) is approved. David S. Wilkison,P.E. Department Head Co County Growth Management Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.6064 (Office) www.colliergov.net From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:23 PM To: KlatzkowJeff; OchsLeo ; StrainMark ; WilkisonDavid ; BosiMichael ; McLeanMatthew Cc: Ralf Brookes ; Dwight E. Brock ;David Cressy ; Carl Stendahl ; Brad Schiffer AIA ; Donna Reed Caron ; Judi Palay ; AndySolice@colliergov.net Subject: Request for Immediate Notification To: Collier County Attorney,Jeff Klatzkow Collier County Manager, Leo Ochs Collier County Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain Collier County Growth Management Department Head, David Wilkison Collier County Zoning Division Director, Michael Bosi Collier County Development Review Division Director,Matt McLean Dear Sirs: This is a formal request that you provide us with immediate notification if/when SDPA PL20160002242 (Kalea Bay Buildings 2--5)gets approved by County"staff." I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this request. Sincerely, 198 Diane Rupnow Judi Palay rupnowdiane@gmail.com judipalay@aol.com 402 580-1545 805 824-6615; 239 513-9141 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing. 199 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:52 AM To: rupnowdiane@gmail.com Subject: FW: County"staff' Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Good morning, Diane—I hope you are well! I just got your email, below,forwarded to me. It seems like Andy's address wasn't quite right,so it didn't get delivered to his in-box. In any case, he is out of town this week,and will review your email next week when he returns. Thanks—have a great day,enjoying our little bit of cool weather! Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Sign up for the District 2 newsletter HERE! Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Diane Rupnow [mailto:rupnowdiane@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:51 PM To:AndvSolice@colliergov.net Cc:SaundersBurt<BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny <PennvTavlor@colliergov.net>; McDanielBill<WilliamMcDanielJr@colliergov.net> Subject: County"staff" Building five Kalea Bay towers 310' wide and only 100' apart will have a direct and observable negative impact on all of us FOREVER. I find it troubling that important decisions are made by County"staff'with complete anonymity and;therefore,no accountability or recourse. Since the separation of high-rise buildings is important to the ambience of an entire community,could we obtain a written review of the staff process to allow the administrative reduction to one half of the intended minimum separation? Also,we would like to know what staff members are responsible for the administrative review on this issue. Thank you! Diane Diane Rupnow rupnowdianeggmail.com 402 580-1545 200 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request; do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 201 GoodnerAngela From: GoodnerAngela Sent: Friday,January 27, 2017 11:10 AM To: SolisAndrew Subject: FW:Tarpon Cove Community concerns Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:GoodnerAngela On Behalf Of SolisAndrew Sent: Friday,January 27, 2017 10:42 AM To: 'John' Subject: RE:Tarpon Cove Community concerns Hello, Mr.Ardito: Thank you for sharing your concerns with Commissioner Solis.We have heard from several of your neighbors about the Wiggins-Pass Road traffic.County staff is investigating and exploring options for how we can ameliorate the effects of the bridge replacement project on your community,and the others along Wiggins-Pass Road. I have added your name to the list of people to receive their reports. We hear your concerns and understand that this is frustrating for you and your residents.You should expect to be hearing from staff with at least some preliminary information soon. Regarding the Cocohatchee PUD clearing, I've heard from some of your neighboring communities with this same concern. My understanding is that the owner of that property is entitled to clear it in accordance with the currently allowed purpose,which is a golf course. I am asking staff to reach out to you again and answer any questions you might have about the scope of what that might entail. I hope this is helpful; please don't hesitate to call or email us whenever we can be of assistance. Angela Goodner, Executive Coordinator for Commissioner Andy Solis Collier County Board of Commissioners, District 2 District Office: 239.252.8602 Fax: 239.252.6947 Under Florida Law.e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity,Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:John [mailto:lardit8@msn.com] Sent:Thursday,January 26, 2017 4:37 PM 202 To:SolisAndrew<AndrewSolis@colliergov.net> Subject:Tarpon Cove Community concerns Commissioner Solis, I am presently serving as the President of the Tarpon Cove Community Association and would like to address two very important concerns I and many of our residents have. The first item is the closure of Vanderbilt Road for the re-construction of two minor bridges. This project was started just at the beginning of the high season and we are told it will continue through next season into the summer of 2018. Why was this project not scheduled to begin in April of this year and then it would have only impacted one full season.The traffic situation we are now experiencing on Wiggins Pass Rd is terrible at certain times of the day, making it extremely difficult to turn left out of our community.The majority of people driving down Vanderbilt make the left on Wiggins then most of these cars are making a right turn onto Rt 41 South. With Wiggins being a single lane until you approach Germain Lexus, it backs traffic up past our entry making for a very unsafe situation. I am asking that you look into any possible plans to improve this condition, possibly re-timing the lights and allowing a greater interval for the right turns. My second concern is the Cocohatchee PUD property at the corner of Vanderbilt Dr & Wiggins Pass Rd.There is noticeable evidence of large areas being cleared in this parcel. I have been in contact with Ray Bellows in the zoning division who told me they were in compliance with the current permit, but that he was going to further check into this, I have received no additional information. Please explain what they are allowed to continue doing at that property under the guidelines that were approved. Our community is very concerned with the scope of work that is being progressing.Thank you for looking into these very important issues. Regards, John Ardito President-TCCA Master Board 973-768-8359 203 GoodnerAngela From: John <jardit8@msn.com> Sent: Thursday,January 26, 2017 4:37 PM To: Sol i sAnd rew Subject: Tarpon Cove Community concerns Commissioner Solis, I am presently serving as the President of the Tarpon Cove Community Association and would like to address two very important concerns I and many of our residents have. The first item is the closure of Vanderbilt Road for the re-construction of two minor bridges. This project was started just at the beginning of the high season and we are told it will continue through next season into the summer of 2018. Why was this project not scheduled to begin in April of this year and then it would have only impacted one full season. The traffic situation we are now experiencing on Wiggins Pass Rd is terrible at certain times of the day, making it extremely difficult to turn left out of our community.The majority of people driving down Vanderbilt make the left on Wiggins then most of these cars are making a right turn onto Rt 41 South. With Wiggins being a single lane until you approach Germain Lexus, it backs traffic up past our entry making for a very unsafe situation. I am asking that you look into any possible plans to improve this condition, possibly re-timing the lights and allowing a greater interval for the right turns. My second concern is the Cocohatchee PUD property at the corner of Vanderbilt Dr & Wiggins Pass Rd.There is noticeable evidence of large areas being cleared in this parcel. I have been in contact with Ray Bellows in the zoning division who told me they were in compliance with the current permit, but that he was going to further check into this, I have received no additional information. Please explain what they are allowed to continue doing at that property under the guidelines that were approved. Our community is very concerned with the scope of work that is being progressing.Thank you for looking into these very important issues. Regards, John Ardito President-TCCA Master Board 973-768-8359 204 GoodnerAngela Subject: Call with Brad Schiffer, Kalea Bay Location: phone call Start: Mon 4/3/2017 12:00 AM End: Tue 4/4/2017 12:00 AM Show Time As: Free Recurrence: (none) Organizer: SolisAndy Ex parte Items - Commissioner Andy Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 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 I (Meetings Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls Meetings: Phone conference with Bruce Anderson, 7/7117 Emails: Steven Bracci, Bruce Anderson, Rich Yovanovich GoodnerAngela Subject: Phone call with Bruce Anderson,Wolf Creek Location: phone call Start: Fri 7/7/2017 11:00 AM End: Fri 7/7/2017 11:15 AM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndy Required Attendees: Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com) 1 GoodnerAngela 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.corn<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 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 GoodnerAngela From: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Sent: Friday,July 7, 2017 4:25 PM To: Richard Yovanovich; R. Bruce Anderson; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; 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 .00 ‘1, 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 5 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.com] 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; FialaDonna<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. 6 Richard D. Yovanovich Esq. COLEMAN Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 0 Y VA ;"�'`VI H 300 Naples, Florida 34103 �� ��"� (239) 435-3535 (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. 7 Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFYPASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (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 ` TBir, • 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. 8 GoodnerAngela 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. 10 Richard D. Yovanovich Esq. Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. COLEMAN 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite Y V,,[, V I H 300 Naples, Florida 34103 KOESTER C (239) 435-3535 (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. 11 Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFYPASSll OMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTOINCrS AT LAW 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (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-mai]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 .•1' 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. 12 GoodnerAngela 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 \tri 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>; 14 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. s TOP-N1is ti LAW 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbandersonanapleslaw.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 15 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>; andvsolis@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 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. 16 GoodnerAngela 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 PASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. %7T0R.Ni“ ,3 ._, 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 17 (239) 659-4942 direct (239)261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson unnapleslaw.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 "0 ,6,0 • .4< 111-- IIr 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. 18 GoodnerAngela From: Steve Bracci <steve@braccilaw.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 5, 2017 5:30 PM To: KlatzkowJeff Cc: SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDaniel Bill; SolisAndy; Fiala Donna; rbanderson@napleslaw.com Subject: Wolf Creek PUD/Vanderbilt Reserve request for insubstantial change Attachments: 2017.07.05 Letter to Jeff Klatzkow (Wolf Creek PUD -Vanderbilt Reserve).pdf; Exhibit No. 2.0 Application No. 161123-9 Page 3 of 7.pdf;Vanderbilt Reserve Summary June 2017.pdf; Summary Documents July 2017 2nd.pdf Dear Jeff and others, please see the attached letter and attachments on behalf of Black Bear Ridge HOA and its members. Sincerely, Steve Bracci h 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. 19 GoodnerAngela From: marc alien <mallencny@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday,June 22, 2017 8:05 AM To: SolisAndy Subject: Re: PDI - PL20160000404 Wolf Creek RPUD Preserve Reduction Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Re: PDI - PL20160000404: Wolf Creek RPUD by the developer of parcels 3b and 9 to reduce preserves Dear Commissioner Solis, First, let me be clear, I am not against development, nor against this developer's right to develop his property. The property is, however, within a residential planned urban development, Wolf Creek, and development should be in keeping with the agreements and ordinances associated with the RPUD, and should be compatible with other developments in the RPUD. There are two facets to this proposal; preserve reduction and residential density, although only one is being considered with this PDI. To be properly assessed the project should be looked at in its entirety, not piecemeal. Please consider the following: With respect to the preserves: There were no excess preserves or excess native vegetation prior to 2013 when a portion of Palermo Cove was brought into the Wolf Creek PUD. As noted in the CCPC minutes of 3/21/2013, it was intended that there be no net effect upon preserves and no increase in density in the Wolf Creek RPUD and Palermo Cove PUD, with the 2013 WCPUD and Palermo Cove amendments. Thus, the apparent "excess" should not have existed. The excess appeared when the required preserves for SFWMD, which were more than the county's native vegetation requirement, were added to the WCPUD map exhibit as preserve, but not taken into account as required native vegetation because only a portion was required. The excess was an unintended consequence and a reduction should therefore not be approved. 20 With respect to the density: While other county PUDs may have dwelling unit "pools", Wolf Creek dwelling units have been allocated to the different parcels in the PUD, initially by a Cost Sharing Agreement* and subsequently by county ordinances** as parcels were added to the PUD. This was done with intent as documented in county minutes*** CCPC minutes from 3/21/13 document specific allocation of dwelling units to prevent them from being "used" by other parcels, which would change density Parcel 9 was allocated 80 dwelling units for a density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre when it was brought into the Wolf Creek RPUD in 2007 - that was the request and that was what was approved Parcel 3b, representing N 60% of the original parcel 3, would be allocated ' 24 dwelling units based upon acreage and the original 2004 CSA post transfer of units to Falls at Portofino Thus, parcels 3b and 9 have N 104 dwelling units allocated to them under current ordinances and agreements - this yields an allocated density of N 3.3 du's/acre Comparable densities are: Black Bear Ridge - density 1.97 built out (N 4 allocated) Raffia(WCPUD portion) - N 2.3 Adjacent Island Walk - 3.04 Falls at Portofino - N 6.85 - these were initially high end town homes selling in the " $500K range - the allocation plan was for one higher density multifamily project on the periphery of WCPUD with lesser density elsewhere There is a companion application PL20160000157 which proposes a 215 dwelling unit project with N 88% of the buildings being 7-9 flex units - this is a high density row house type development of N 6.82 du's/acre - more than twice the approved/allocated density. parcels 3b and 9 do not have 215 dwelling units allocated to them and there is no request to increase the approved density the developer is claiming density he does not appear to have At every juncture, the county has historically upheld the allocation of dwelling units within the Wolf Creek PUD, documented in meeting minutes and ordinances. 21 The county should be consistent and continue to recognize the historical allocation and not allow a claim for unused but allocated dwelling units within the PUD. In conclusion please consider: The PDI for a requested reconfiguration of the preserve map and decrease in preserves should not be approved as there should be no "excess" preserves. The companion PL 20160000157 should not be approved as the requested number of dwelling units is more than twice that allocated. The high density row house type development is not compatible with the original plan and not in keeping with the majority of the adjacent developments. Note that there is no opposition to development according to parameters of the original plan; a development of —104 dwelling units, which may be multifamily, possibly with a mild or moderate increase in density, but this proposal is not that. We have met with the developer in an attempt to work out something mutually agreeable. They have been unwilling to consider any compromise in their proposed density, to which they are not entitled according to allocation. Thank you for your time, Respectfully, Marc Allen, 7347 Acorn Way, Naples FL *OR 3635 PGS 1672-1699, recognized as valid and enforceable as documented in various county meeting minutes **Ordinances 2007-46 and 2013-37 ***BCC minutes 5/22-23/2007, CCPC minutes 3/21/13 22 STEVEN J.BRACCI, PA A Professional Association Attorney at Law 9015 Strada Stell Court,Suite 102 Naples,Florida 34109 Ph: (239)596-2635 Fax: (239)431-6045 steve@braccilaw.com www.braccilaw.com July 5,2017 VIA E-MAIL jeffklatzkow@a,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 into 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 "balkanized"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. 1 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. s Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney I Page 3 f Please feel free to contact me if you wish to further discuss this matter. Sincerely, 1 4 t STEVEN J. BRACCI,PA 111 t t r Steven J.Bracci, Esq. , 3 i i t t cc: Collier County Board of County Commissioners i Bruce Anderson, Esq. Client 6 , 1 } E SS ` 6 t 1 1 , , 1 t , . I y i i is. 5 i }} I , .. , 1 , , 11 :•' L4e,,,,I-Ai-1 il __ — ----1------ , r--,....,. .,,..„. ,,..,4 , ........ , _ ...... __ __ _ _ ...._ . i , 11-11-'''-'21111 II '' Vitmr:' 'g 0. 1132=LP o.,,,,, \i,gli "ir, p i . *eV IS, , 1 „ 10 ii: WI 14._ ' p vi si — In pirf 4-MI. 1 Ei ,‘5.--...:-.a -4-,--.-rl'-' ei i IT ell ta LI l I . 1...... 1 ... 1 ..7:„I V.5• 311 6 i 1.'..Zr.,11'It.+-- L,41, '11/0t | ! : 94,0 ,..„,,1 te... ;......1 PHASES 1,1 ...ill Mill.,.. �� �0 /~ ° .�o ! --..! 1411.1111.8 .. l--1 mit -tit � ^ | ' ' o�- , la mil oS i -r-- , _-,„.44. 1,..• .t.„-...-;,,t•._ --] ---=,..-7,..---- - 1 .1, rfr---,-.-linikoggirliFIRIPIR - iis t ., 0 oi, .1...i..,...1 -',Hai - ir".1___,.,1,, , '''.W. �~��~� ~-�w~ l : ~~s"� 4 1111Priiit. i 1 ..,.......,.....,.................. � --�----'-- POOP SHEET ___'__'----_'__-��_- - —' mm�m�� '`��-,r~� A ;all| ' ' .���� ---'��� ,~� o� ���� _�:_ "' -~ � / ^ . ------ -~-~ vn�_ [7.... \ X/ . � '/ --- | Mederos parcel#9 highlighted115 complete dweing units sxx/unwoco and 4 partial dwelling units Application No 161123-9 Parcel 3B located above Parcel 9 shows 96 complete dwelling units and 4 Page 3 of 7 partial units 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 alloca -: •.. .f .: tion (a) hereof to Parcels 7 through 9, inclusive. Said option may be exer ` i'••. r • •.re than two transactions on or before December 31, 2005 ("Expiration P.. ' e purchase pn h individual dwelling unit shall be $500.00. In the event Purchaser ec o exercise this option, ' .cha shall,on or before the Expiration Date, notify Seller of the num,er •. .._o . • ••: Clo • g f any such purchase of dwelling units shall occur within 20 da of•eller's re • notic-from ' ch ser. The purchase price shall be paid in cash,wired funds,or�'cos,: c - or fTr an ffice in Collier County,Florida or such other method as may be a . t - = •. ``', :'s .•le iscretion. Seller shall have the sole discretion to determine t •••- ' ling - • E signed. Purchaser shall pay all costs associated with the • • er of dwelling units. `.if s o,*do I terminate on midnight of the Expiration Date and be of no 1. orce and effect. o (c) Contingency. In i • t any statute, law •t• ce,resolution,rule,or regulation is adopted and enforced by the state, , .'' : •. 1: .11741 • entity (or any agency or department thereof) that would have the effect of •ir• I;1121 I 'ie number of dwelling units that can be constructed within the Wolf Creek PUD(in its en ,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. Immilmill0.- 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."."4100- Interpretation of I •• Iva -; a essly provided, the term"owner"when used in this Agreement shall be de- i • •• s.e and in,,, i - • 'er and the owner's successors,assigns, or successor in title. "' 20. Integration. •s •gre • em•••'es i e entire i,d • ding of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein,an. the . ../ - •. _y- . :•s•, + • all prior understandings. 1 21. Counte i ,, •gr, ;,• execs -• m1iny'number of counterparts,each of which shall be deemed to be : _.-• as " •• "` `o ture appears thereon and all of which shall together constitute , d the same ins. • - �o 22. Recording. This ',i - ent shall be recor• • Public Records of Collier County, Florida. t17),4,&-, A� IIT E C1 C • (SIGNATURES BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE) 14 *** OR: 3635 PG: 1699 *** INITIAL DENSITY ALLOCATION-WOLF CREEK PUD Wolf Creek PUD's Initial Residential Unit Allocation #S #5 CO(�TT 61 81 I U 704 #11 #7 \Cadnfwers Lend 61 ' ' 41 r-v Nage*Lend v Tan Ceat7YLend ldWolk We ° ., -- -- j PUD Ftssidonrid 8E C Shopping Center1 Mimic»Hes #1 W 64 A-2 Wended*Beech Road A-1 Total of 14769 acres and 591 Un/ls 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, it's 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 6.74754 residential dwelling units shall be constructed in the residential areas of the project. The gross project area is 46744188.78± acres. The gross project density shall be a maximum of 3.99 units per acre if all 67-4-754 dwelling units are approved and constructed-. A minimum of 83 dwelling units will be assigned to parcels 1 A - 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 struek-t reugh 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 trying 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 1A, 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 11? 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 IA 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 language—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 ifs trying 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. I'll 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 lA 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 lA 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—it's 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 VONIER 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 }!^.aA }} i r M , .3 'srisAAst''scp- } iI'19'1p a 14: 1; AI I'IIiI}g}A hid MN Aft 4 IIN M 7II.,, IIB1gi titY l i. :1q' limb I i Y/1 l i"P�i i}9F�ip}i A t!milli!;PPF l��'� FNY ��IiP€i�����Et�Wl�3��1 ��REEdmo k El€Ii �� t I�� mor: poilliquill o i e i r 1� 3i Bf€; a A pp )) I: r, © S I - , . , . EV II A,. Ir --, -'-'-:"7-04§11110' 7I "tl' �� le i` 9eel eiele 'e® } _ E . p- g, 8 , .+ I_ 11.2_, atm,—a I arr A: �3�sha ,j1�s3a mmlmim{m a — ,}Z�= ' »r'*--„ —•ter E1` :rr i:i-oi, i �'$#i iiata ala} ,,---4' ;w Ike .' i ft ' Ilk (t 61 I', I e1 � 'Ab�' Its- 3 e s t a:_iq!"'--"—"' QRS r5. +' 3 ��I�elltl aYOA. • 4 r�u; ;�. i,'i+II iir 111 P 1 ® e �� S L)" i._g i;" • un _ mjR it {xgit i }p;� .— il= it k' 1i4: i 14 t • �. AI_ I� I e ' 4 �, A;!i� vi s ,, a (IN ��� "� �� �n_��tewn��s a �II1.� -:a € I�II1L iel'' lalej® elei ►iielele - 6pr . 3, l I� a aii .i_: is'1,4,1111:177111°177171:1111,, € mlmt�' tN.-- ltatmt �l�i. $' �i:: i- € ; ®t!.Il!pmt tati� _ aS--- .— _ t ip pp .'ems . - r— Pa C} �� as € { ern ' a+ast ',4 ai I ill o !1.01 , 1y elelel t lelel,l• elllel: ', _ ,,,"•� 's'u '- - - - - '-- 1 A - -1. _i f gayy '�j� A._ :. E.r. I.{ r A fl -- 3 4. _ -.. q co C.�n q 1 1elolel ielelele } _, y I :4lAI 24 rti timtm iititm+ .i A: p A�, a. i „ I' Ili i...--_-..-.........‘,.... -7.7.44,i, juma€,aFa;a pa,�=mtm i�a m:,, t.�. ' , �� M : it „I elele, ice!e`J!mit®va .60 1 ';, 6 : f WOLF CREEK PUD --�»-- =.:, r, . PUD MASTER PLAN ------------- __— + ����±�a�'u sTzd riracimmai..r.maw. ...s+ I 1 R4S MTNIta11�'II i [ 4P"ii. Irmie rP4.1 fT71r TOTK OIIBftE MRtOENOUB PAF>FAVEYAL RE- —_�� �J�•jy'�/{'i//w�/}!4+ '�}{/yyt >QSI�CRFB.MMIO)YY11Tar]Ol AWES Milt) /yfyYy�G i Mw+s �\��-_—I'�'II IS CURRENTLY tutowpaOTHE IS AGMs nu :�'L%'/�•,�•/� w� IA 1�R�7 O BE TERMO PUN.AR ES RVE]AT TNKREswt1 — N'/6C5S�Ghl4Y `% RE MOM AND PRESERVE]AT TE TME Of IOP {' /� /r .PLAT APPROVAL Ii w... a.ar•- ...� wr-.� — • `- „n—e. r—o.w-- 1 --,••• ---1T-= I ill II! I 1 II tr•.� %"' G �,, r 1 ,G P..1........... Mar rAmc.w.a.aR.--- re II a II ...,:. , , ...................................... I I I V OMR n MRM RRRAI --' OMIERIDEVELOPER ,■ I IORRLR£egWlt inY w +S .R v n.l.r.tr/...r7.....it l.r.,,..1.. PUD MASTER PLAN ®.nw,EIiRtwoMY=RAM .e......... �� L . ..i 1._ _ =■ —�w-- P.�7 r-.i 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 approvaUacceptance 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 struek- rough are deleted;words underlined are added. Woff Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 23 of 26 OR: 3635 PG: 1696 Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Off-slte Improvements Item-North-South Outer Loop Road Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Cleating and Grubbing 2 AC $3,500.00 57,000.00 2 Sib Fence 2,800 LF 51.50 54,200.00 • 3 Fill 8,500 CY S9.00 $76,500.00 4 Final Grade 1 LS 56,500.00 $6,500.00 5 Valley Gutter 2.700 LF 55.50 514,150.00 6 r Limerock Base(compacted and primed) 4,800 SY S7.50 536,000.00 7 12'Stabilized Subgrade 5,750 SY S2.25 812,937.50 8 3'Asphalt 4,100 SY U.50 540,800.00 9 Signing R pavement markings I LS 56,500.00 $6,500.00 • 10 Sodding 5,600 SY S1.50 38,700.00 I I 5'Wide Concrete Sidewalk 1,500 SY $16.50 $24,750.00 12 4'L rnerock(under sidewalk) 1,500 SY S4.50 S6,750.00 13 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS 52,500.00 52,500.00 Sub-total ,. ,,ea.,�.,r 5=47987.50 Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements I aat5ty Unit Price Total I Tum Lanes Complete(WB Rt,EB Lt) 540,000.00 880,000.00 2 SignalIation 000.00 5130,000.00 3 Side Drain Drainage(4 D131,DBL run 36") ��� � r_,/, 35,00(1.00 535,000.00 4 Lighting L LS`- 525,000. 525,000.00 cQ Sabah', .:^ *. 5270,000.00 N Item-North-South Outer I�p d \ , Sanitary Seweri — Qua.N --.ti's t Unit Price, Tatel 1 8"PVC Force Main(C-900 s t 4-OQ \528.000.00 2 I'Plug Valve w/Box f oj1'b�X 52,7 00 3 Hot Tap Future 16'Force on 00 i Item-North-South Onte IF, c... .1.71 : ' + .,j( .! Water Maio }, Quaatity ' Uufti rke�i t i /; Hot Tap Existing 30"Bela Con`11tt.„ k 3, I (or at-j/b and tap new prop 24't9 .l 1 LS`r c 5351,.... ,les;000.00 2 12'PVC Water Main(CL 200) "' 1,400 LF :,700.00 3 12"Gate Valve w/Box ` 2 EA .. S3,000.00 4 Fire Hydrant(Complete Assembly) O� 2 EA - $4,800.00 5 Permanent Bacterial Sample Point ('' v,r,,,.00 $1,000.00 6 Temporary Bacterial Sample Point x.00 5900.00 7 Air Release Valve Cl'"�..-RA-- 51,550,00 53,100.00 Sob-Total 2:$.,,'.4::'F:si.:f',1^;:?x $83,500.00 Item-North-South Outer Loop Road- Draiaage Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Control Structure 1 EA $4,000.00 54,000.00 2 15"RCP 100 LF 523.00 52,300.00 3 18'RCP 350 LF 525.00 58,750.00 4 24'RCP 1,200 LF $34.00 $40,800.00 5 Valley Goner Throat Inlet 6 EA 52,000.00 312,000.00 6 Grate Inlet 4 FA $1,700.00 56,800.00 7 Junction Box 8 PA $1,850.00 514,100.00 8 15'Flared End Section 1 EA $900.00 5900.00 Sub-Total s ��4!: 390,350.00 OIFSiteTotala =').",,,,".'..,,,:.",-...Z'',•.1•.v;:. $728,097.50 5/14/2004 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 ,,.. '4 .V C O j'i service for the potential lots on the Comcast`pa S-'' `-'"^>°•-/1j1g,7/c),...3 , Drainage Water \ '' L Will provide water service stubs or 2 " - 44 ' Earthwork and Clearing f� Fill from lakes is limited to only 1' ! nation depth below existing 14,` .d,p�r D' .+-., commendation. An average of 1.6 ft of fill over the at eveloped site. . (J Rock excavation,rock crushing and• incidental to the lake exea ..- , (I PavingILE �"".\ Sidewalk cost included in initial infrastructure. 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(Le.payment to county to build improvements to support project and to built as part of 6 lane improvements). %7y� .5,� ; QRZ y ..4- �72t /6% .....0.../1.4,_e_„:. K LdZZ �, 7 EXHIBIT"D"-Page 3 of 3 26 CONSTRUCTION,MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS-(INFRASTRUCTURE) • THIS AGREEMENT entered into this 301' 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 suxent Orion Bank account number for this account is 8500006690. 3. Lender agrees to hold in escrow THREE MILLION FIFTY-SEVEN n�� SUP I— 'r THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($3,057,906.50) from the Construction Loan, to be disbursed only pursuant to this Agreement. Lender acknowledges that this Agreement shall not constitute a draw against the Construction Loan fund,but that only such funds as are actually disbursed, whether pursuant to this Agreement or a provision of the Construction Loan, shall accrue interest. 4. The escrowed funds shall be released to the Developer only upon written approval of the Development Services Director who shall approve the release of the funds on deposit not more than once a month to the Developer, in amounts due for work done to date based on the percentage completion of the work multiplied by the respective work costs less ten percent (10%); and further, that upon completion of the work, the Development Services Director shall approve the release of any remainder of escrowed funds except to the extent of$305,790.65 which shall remain in escrow as a Developer guaranty of maintenance of the Required Improvements for a minimum period of one (1) year pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the Agreement. However, in the event that Developer shall fail to comply with the requirements of this Agreement, then the Lender agrees to pay to the County immediately upon demand the balance of the funds held in escrow by the Lender, as of the date of the demand, provided that upon payment of such balance to the County, the County will have executed and delivered to the Lender in exchange for such funds a statement to be signed by the Development Services Director to the effect that: (a) Developer for more than sixty (60) days after written notification of such failure has failed to comply with the requirements of this agreement; (b) The County, or its authorized agent, will complete the work called for under the terms of the above-mentioned contract or will complete such portion of such work as the County, in its sole discretion shall deem necessary in the public interest to the extent of the funds then held in escrow; (c) The escrow funds drawn down by the County shall be used for construction of the Required Improvements engineering, legal and contingent costs and expenses, and to offset any damages, either direct or consequential, which the County may sustain on account of the failure of the Developer to carry out and execute the above-mentioned development work; and, (d) The County will promptly repay to the Lender any portion of the funds drawn down and not expended in completion of the said development work. 5. Written notice to the Lender by the County specifying what amounts are to be paid to the Developer shall constitute authorization by the County to the Lender for release of the specified funds to the Developer. Payment by the Lender to the Developer of the amounts specified in a letter of authorization by the County to the Lender shall constitute a release by the County and Developer of the Lender for the funds disbursed in accordance with the letter of authorization from the County. 6. The Required Improvements shall not be considered complete until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been furnished to be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director for compliance with the Collier County Subdivision Regulations. 7. The County Manager or his designee shall, within sixty(60) days of receipt of the statement of substantial completion, either: a) notify the Developer in writing of his preliminary approval of the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of his refusal to approve the improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the Developer must fulfill in order to obtain the Director of the Required Improvements. However, in no event shall the Development Services Director refuse preliminary approval of the improvements if they are in fact constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. 8. Should the funds held in escrow be insufficient to complete the Required Improvements, the Board, after duly considering the public interest, may at its option complete the Required Improvements and resort to any and all legal remedies against the Developer. 9. Nothing in this Agreement shall make the Lender liable for any funds other than those placed in deposit by the Developer in accordance with the foregoing provision; provided, that the Lender does not release any monies to the Developer or to any other person except as stated in this Escrow Agreement to include closing the account or disbursing any funds from the account without first requesting and received written approval from the County. 10. The Developer shall maintain all Required Improvement for one year after preliminary approval by the County Manager or his designee. After the one year maintenance period by the Developer and upon submission of a written request for inspection, the Development Services Director shall inspect the Required Improvements and, if found to be still in compliance with the Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Lender's responsibility to the Board under this Agreement is terminated. The Developer's responsibility for maintenance of the Required Improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for and by the County. 11. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the Developer and the Lender. (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank-Signatures Begin on Next Page) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and the•Develoer have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized-representatives this sol- day of3 4',2005. DEVELOPER: BUCKSTONE ESTATES,LLC, i a Florida limited liability company lP .�.r�O By: Catalina Land Group, (PralEar TE.?. Y $iii ' a Florida corporation, its Manager (Print Name: f 0-� el t ) By: 21/4 ci.V., )4,--e•—•-.....,,, Wi ham L. Hoover, President LENDER: Orion Bank, ,,,� a Florida banking corporation Li .... ►A' t:ri 6-‘----iiiBy:Q y,� n ,,711.1. "T, .,,, :mac••,--) Mil 211021'� Name:___ r t X. K Phi-L U (Print Name:' Br ndy A. Rosch 1 e Title: S 4ri'iO,C Ps•C PQi $t•bevr- ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA L2 r. .9: 1 . .e O?CK,Clerk T \` yu. �.� . ` W. -Ltk 'Cler'l • ``` 1, Chairman 6.-.8,0,k, ;A to is ,fits r i •i -.-signator ,ilnl ja : Feu L) • cry l —Approvedd 4s•to,66-ni and legal sufficiency: '1 ; VA Assistant County At ey J MVrU i Ft 1 A. t�,)e D ^GgY1 SwI.a dn,Y baof &bd.own• V'INN:Con...,Munscnke and[s.nr.Agreime t tor Sol4o soon IO 0000oents.Ax Black Bear Ridge-Phase I Budget Off-site Improvements (PRISTINE DRIVE) %PROGRESS BUDGET Site Work Quantity Unit Price Total AS OF 9-15-06 CONSUMED 1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 AC $3,500.00 $7,000.00 100% $7,000.00 2 Silt Fence 2,800 LF $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 I.F $5.50 $14,850.00 100% $14,850.00 6 8"Limerock 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 $1.50 $8,700.00 0% $0.00 11 5'Wide Concrete Sidewalk 1,500 SY $16.50 524,750.00 0% $0.00 12 4"Limerock(under sidewalk) 1,500 SY $4.50 $6,750.00 0% $0.00 13 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 100% $2,500.00 Sub-total $247,987.50 Vanderbilt Beach Road Intersection Improvements Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Turn Lanes Complete(WB Rt,EB U) 2 LS $40,000.00 $80,000.00 0% $0.00 2 Signalization I 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 Quantity Unit Price Total 1 8"PVC Force Main(C-900 Class 200) 1,400 LF $20.00 $28,000.00 100% $28,000.00 2 8"Plug Valve w/Box 2 EA $1,380.00 $2,760.00 100% $2,760.00 3 Hot Tap Future 16"Force Main on VBR l 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-'j/b and tap new prop 24"wm) 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 100% $35,000.00 2 12"PVC Water Main(CL 200) 1,400 LF $25.50 $35,700.00 100% $35,700.00 3 12"Gate Valve wBox 2 EA $1,500.00 53,000.00 100% $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 1 EA $900.00 5900.00 100% $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 54,000.00 100% $4,000.00 2 15"RCP 100 LF $23.00 $2,300.00 100% $2,300.00 3 18"RCP 350 LF $25.00 58,750.00 100% $8,750.00 4 24"RCP 1,200 LF $34.00 $40,800.00 100% $40,800.00 5 Valley Gutter Throat Inlet 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000.00 100% $12,000.00 6 Grate Inlet 4 EA $1,700.00 $6,800.00 100% $6,800.00 7 Junction Box 8 EA $1,850.00 $14,800.00 100% $14,800.00 8 15"Flared End Section I EA $900.00 5900.00 100% $900.00 Sub-Total 590,350.00 Off-SiteTotals .. _ ._. $728,097.50 59% $430,077.50 9/15/2006 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Andy Solis 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 SEE FILE Meetings ❑Correspondence e-mails ['Calls Ex parte Items - Commissioner Andy Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 07/11/17 Consent Agenda 16.A.5 This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes Phase 1A, Application Number PL20170001378. 7 NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE nMeetings ❑Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls