Loading...
Commissioner Ex Parte 1 / A auwarsirecome Cv e* r County l7A STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MAY 3,2018 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20160000226;TORRES FAMILY TRUST COMPANION ITEM: PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2 PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENTS: Owner: Agents: Torres Family Holdings, LLC Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Richard D.Yovanovich,Esq. 7742 Alico Road Hole Montes,Inc. Coleman,Yovanovich&Koester,P.A. Fort Myers,FL 33912 950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples,FL 34110 Naples,FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development(CPUD)zoning district. The subject property is one vacant parcel and is owned by Torres Family Holdings,LLC. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of US 41, approximately one-half mile southeast of Manatee Road and, opposite and southeast of Naples Reserve Boulevard, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.8+/- acres (see location map on page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petition seeks to rezone the property to CPUD to allow for the development of up to 60,000 square feet(SF)of gross floor area of commercial uses including air-conditioned mini-self-storage warehousing, and allowing assisted living facilities at a floor area ratio of 0.60. PUDZ-PL20160000226:Torres Family Trust Page 1 of 15 Revised:April 6, 2018 1 A r 1 410 0 0 * li. 70'V ct,• C - ,- • r-- lei Ira 2,tv Mil 1.V., i cn o ow I Li - o a. co ro Cc A . *AA sus gm ler .:* 9, 4 iii Es. 44101' !Mit.* - u, am P110 illk ...„,* zu = a , irkivv. ,.. 110 all Ze t 2 1i., - .' LOCATION fittIVISIIIII 16111113t1 al top tviii At = _..t.,` ,,., _ i,•41 1 I LOCATION , S 1 te Iral , rl ....41 t%'Air -=•,7,7, - - , , r., ) I -1,7F„--------- -, ,4 ow ibot t,••-( ., 1E Pul t . 4. .. ' ,E147 t„t CO I MI ' t0 ID IQ O Loction Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL20160000226 / f 11A SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses, zoning classifications, and maximum approved densities for properties surrounding boundaries of the Torres Family Trust CPUD: North: Tamiami Trail East, a six-lane arterial roadway, and then single and multi- family homes with a current zoning designation of Walnut Lakes PUD (3.0 dwelling units per acre [DU/AC]) and is approved foir single and multi-family homes. East: Developed with travel trailers and recreational vehicles,with a current zoning designation of Travel-Trailer Recreational Vehicle Campground ('1-1RVC) District(12 DU/AC)known as Imperial Wilderness R.V. Resort South: Developed with travel trailers and recreational vehicles, with a current zoning designation of Travel-Trailer Recreational Vehicle Campground (TTRVC) District(12 DU/AC)known as Imperial Wilderness R.V. Resort West: Developed residential, with a current zoning designation of Marco Shores/Fiddlers Creek PUD (2.08 DU/AC) and is approved for single and multi-family residential units,churches,and group care facilities „ , 7.;' if,c7.--.---'4'1.-..k:.-..; 11:, ..., . ,;',, -....„...a4: !�p ,, H r \\\\ te, ., �' libIllit23114114*''- \ a3'. '-: ' 44 , \44.1, - ",.. ' i - tgyp, �.� r NI 1,,1-1,,„..,,' ..� r + 1, Ate. $ v,hF C, ' o" i ''1f" 1,11-. ♦ , 3, , '$,- - a Y E .n � \f� sT° � �� S3'1 in,,ti,�y_ ay 41 es. tiAo< fi ' r '.: Aerial rial(Coiurtt•GIS) PUDZ-PL20160000226,Torres Family Trust Page 3 of 15 Revised:April 6. 2018 17 A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map within the GMP. This petition is not consistent with any of the Urban Mixed Use District's Subdistricts that allow commercial zoning; it relies, in part, on a companion Small-Scale GMP Amendment (SSBGPA) to the FLUE provisions toward achieving consistency. That amendment [ref. PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2] establishes the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict. Based upon the analysis,the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP, contingent, in part, upon the companion GMP Amendment being adopted and going into effect. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date to be linked to an effective date of the companion GMP Amendment. (see Attachment B —FLUE Consistency Review) Transportation Element: In evaluating this project,staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2015 and 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Reports(AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments)directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " The proposed Rezone on the subject property was reviewed based on the then applicable 2015 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed C-3 commercial development will generate approximately 425 PM peak hour unadjusted two-way trips. Staff also reviewed this rezone request using the now current 2017 AUIR as part of this staff PUDZ-PL20160000226,Torres Family Trust Page 4 of 15 Revised: April 6, 2018 1 ? A report. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities in the below table. Roadway Link 2015 2015 Current 2017 2017 2017 AUIR Remaining Peak Hour AUIR Remaining LOS `Capacity Peak Direction LOS Capacity Service Volume/Peak Direction Tamiami Collier B 2,067 3,100/East B 2,089 Trail East Boulevard (US 41) to Joseph Lane Tamiami Joseph B 1,057 2,000/East B 1,075 Trail East Lane to (US 41) Greenway Road Tamiami Greenway D 230 1,075/East D 248 Trail East Road to (US 41) San Marco Drive *Please note: 2015 and 2017 AUIR totals do not include the recently completed improvements on US 41. These trip totals are anticipated to improve with the 2018 AUIR. Based on the 2015 and 2017 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the proposed rezone within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the subject petition can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. A minimum of 0.80 acre of native vegetation is required to be retained for the PUD. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning. Staff finds the proposed rezone to be consistent with the GMP subject to the approval of the companion amendment to the GMP, PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report(referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's PUDZ-PL20160000226;Torres Family Trust Page 5 of 15 Revised:April 6,2018 17A ► recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading"Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers analyses in the below sections. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII,Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. A minimum of 0.80 acre of native vegetation is required to be retained for the PUD. The subject property is located within the boundary of the Deltona Settlement Agreement as shown on the exhibits in the Settlement Agreement, but documentation provided by the applicant shows that the property was never owned by the Deltona Corporation. The County Attorney Office has since reviewed the title report submitted by the applicant and opined, based on the documents provided by the applicant,that the Deltona Corporation never owned the parcel and as a result,the applicant could not be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Research by the Real Property Department did not find any evidence of ownership by Deltona. In addition, The Conservancy of SW Florida,representative for the conservation group interveners who are Signe to the Deltona Settlement Agreement, issued a letter stating that they have no objection to the application. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Utilities Review: Public Utilities staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Emergency Management Review: Emergency Management staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC,and recommends approval of this project. Landscape Review: The Master Plan shows a 0.8 acre preserve along the south boundary of the PUD. The Master Plan also notes that the preserve may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirement after removal of exotics.In the event that all or part of the preserve does not meet the requirements of the buffer,supplemental planting will be provided in accordance with 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1 of the LDC to meet buffer requirements.The Master Plan shows a 10' Type'D' Buffer along the West,and a 15'Type`D'Buffer along the North.There are two different buffers depicted along the East boundary. One is a Type `B' Buffer. This buffer is labeled as 25' and this is wider than the buffer required by the LDC.The other buffer shown along the east boundary is a 10'Type 'A' adjacent to an area labeled as a Collier County Water-Sewer Parcel. This parcel is zoned agricultural. Zoning Services Review: Staff has evaluated the uses proposed and their intensities, and the development standards such as building heights, setbacks, and landscape buffers. Staff also PUDZ-PL20160000226:Torres Family Trust Page 6 of 15 Revised April 6. 2018 17A evaluated the building mass, building location and orientation, the amount and type of open space and its location,and traffic generation/attraction of the proposed uses. The amount of allowable square footage being requested is 60,000 SF of various commercial uses, which may include air-conditioned, enclosed, mini-self-storage warehousing, and assisted living facilities at a floor area ratio of 0.60. The East Tamiami Trail Infill Subdistrict is a companion SSGMPA, which will create a site-specific future land use Subdistrict. The proposed uses within the Torres Family Trust CPUD will be consistent with the condition in this East Tamiami Trail Infill Subdistrict. There are public facilities and services available consistent with the levels of service adopted in the GMP, and as defined and implemented through, the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Within the proposed Tones Family Trust CPUD boundaries,the minimum setback from US 41 is 35 feet with an eastern boundary setback of 25 feet, a western boundary setback of 25 feet, and a southern boundary setback of 25 feet from the preserve boundary. The actual building heights are not to exceed 52 feet, and the zoned heights are not to exceed 45 feet. To the north of the subject property,the Walnut Lakes PUD has a maximum height of 35 feet for single-family dwellings and 50 feet for multifamily dwellings. To the west, the Marco Shores/Fiddlers Creek PUD has a maximum height of 60 feet for the golf course and club center, 50 feet for business developments, 35 feet for single-family and duplex dwellings,and 100 feet for multifamily dwellings.To the east and south, Imperial Wilderness R.V. resort has a maximum height for any recreational facility of 30 feet. The proposed height of the Tones Family Trust CPUD is compatible with the immediate neighborhoods as the surrounding properties have a variation of maximum heights above and below the 45-foot zoned building height threshold in the proposed Torres Family Trust CPUD.As previously stated, a 15-foot wide Type D Buffer is proposed along US 41 on the North side of the PUD. The Master Plan proposes a 25-foot Type B Buffer along the east PUD boundary,a 10-foot- wide Type D Buffer along the west PUD boundary, and a .8 acre preserve along the South boundary of the PUD. As such, the CPUD will be designed to limit commercial uses to provide a transition from the Fiddlers Creek business district on the west to the recreational vehicle zoned lands to the south and east. The development standards will provide external setbacks, limitations on height, and additional buffers to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land,surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,sewer,water, and other utilities. The type and pattern of development proposed should not have a negative impact upon any physical characteristics of the land, the surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Furthermore, this project, if developed, will be required PUDZ-PL20160000226;Torres Family Trust Page 7 of 15 Revised:April 6. 2018 17A to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00 Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives,and policies of the GMP or the companion SSGMPA within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements,restrictions on design,and buffering and screening requirements. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The Master Plan proposes the appropriate perimeter landscape buffers. Please, see Zoning Services section of this report for a detailed analysis. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and PUDZ-PL20160000226; Torres Family Trust Page 8 of 15 Revised:April 6,2018 i 7 A potable water supplies to accommodate this project. Furthermore, adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations,or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case,based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking one deviation to allow design flexibility with assisted living facilities in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes that the deviation proposed can be supported if a portion of the beds are designated as Medicaid beds, finding, that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be vaived without detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please, refer to the Deviations Discussion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination of the deviation located on page 12. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection I0.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP if the companion SSGMPA is adopted. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern of the abutting properties is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel is of sufficient size and therefore will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. PUDZ-Pt20160000226;Torres Family Trust Page 9 of 15 Revised:April 6,2018 17A 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. As shown on the zoning map included at the beginning of this report, the existing district boundaries are logically drawn. The proposed PUD zoning boundaries follow the property ownership boundaries and coincide with the GMP subdistrict boundaries. The zoning map on page 2 of the staff report illustrates the perimeter of the outer boundary of the subject parcel. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. It should be noted that the proposed uses are not allowed under the current zoning classification. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD Rezone is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the FLUE of the GMP if the companion SSGMPA is adopted. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD rezone should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development,or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The PUD Document provides adequate property development regulations to ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. The Master Plan further demonstrates that the locations of proposed preserve and open space areas should further ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced in adjacent areas. PUDZ-PL20160000226;Torres Family Trust Page 10 of 15 Revised:April 6,2018 17A 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. All properties surrounding the subject property are developed, as previously noted. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The proposed uses and development standards cannot be used in accordance with the existing zoning classification. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff's opinion the proposed PUD rezone is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. PUDZ-Pt20160000226:Torres Family Trust Page 11 of 15 Revised:April 6, 2018 1 / A i 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities(APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process, and those staff persons have concluded that no level of service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this rezoning will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety, and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC.The deviation is directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner's rationale and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below. Proposed Deviation #1: (Group Housing) "Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D.1 Group Housing, which establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45 for care units, assisted living units, continuing care retirement communities, nursing homes, and dwelling units that are part of an aging-in-place living environment, to allow a maximum floor area ratio of 0.60 for an Assisted Living Facility, consistent with the East Tamiami Trail Infill Subdistrict." Petitioner's Justification: The design of assisted living facilities has changed in recent years, with ALFs now offering additional recreational, educational, and health services directly on campus, in addition to personal services, such as hair salons, banks, health spas, and other concierge services. Living PUDZ-PL20160000226;Torres Family Trust Page 12 of 15 Revised:April 6,2018 1 % A spaces have become larger, as people are generally healthier moving into these communities, and are looking for a residential space more comparable to an apartment, rather than simply a bed in a nursing home. The additional floor area ratio will provide flexibility for facilities that provide multiple stages of care or a variety of unit types. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff would like to note that recently there has been concern by the CCPC for petitioners requesting additional floor area for assisted living facilities. It's been discussed that if petitioners are requesting deviations for additional floor areas of proposed group housing,then they should provide for Medicaid beds as part of their justification for the deviations. The inclusion of the dedicated Medicaid beds will assist the County in support of the GMP, Housing Element, Goal One, "To Create an adequate supply of decent safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for all residents of Collier County." On October 5,2017,the CCPC heard the Cleary PUD petition. In this case,the petitioner was also requesting a maximum FAR of 0.60. The CCPC expressed that the 0.60 FAR was not justified without the provision of dedicated Medicaid beds. It should be noted that the deviation was modified to a maximum FAR of 0.50 and approved at the November 14, 2017 BCC meeting. Based on the above, Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved at 0.50 FAR, mirroring the November 2017 Cleary PUD request. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (MM): The applicant conducted a NIM on June 29,2017,at the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, The Auditorium at 300 Tower Road in Naples. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:30 p.m. The applicant's agent explained the request for the proposed rezone and the companion SSGMPA. Bob Mulhere, the agent, gave a presentation and answered questions from attendees. It was discussed that there would be multiple proposed uses including restaurants and adult living facilities. He affirmed that there will be no gas stations and that the gas station use is not included within the proposed uses. There were also general discussions about lighting, preserves, and buffering. There were concerns from residents of Imperial Wilderness about the clearing of vegetation near their homes.The NIM summary and sign-in sheet are included in the CCPC backup materials. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL(EAC)REVIEW: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. PUDZ-PL20160000226;Torres Family Trust Page 13 of 15 Revised:April 6,2018 1 / A COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on April 2, 2018. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval,with the dedication of a portion of the beds associated with the group housing facility to Medicaid beds Attachments: A) Proposed Ordinance B) FLUE Consistency Review C) Correspondence PUDZ-PL20160000226;Torres Family Trust Page 14 of 15 Revised:April 6,2018 17A PREPARED BY: TIMOTHY FINN MCP, RINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: 7-arrirj zS/1/8) RAYMOBELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER I DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: ES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Tentative Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date June 12, 2018. PUDZ-PL20160000226:Torres Family Trust Page 14 of 14 Revised:March 2,2018 1 / A BrownleeMichael From: Denise Hoethke <hoethke@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 8:23 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Proposed Self Storage Warehouse Project NO please vote no. Resident of Reflection lakes Community. 1 1 / A BrownleeMichael From: Lucyl Lachance <lucyl.lachance@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 2:30 PM To: FialaDonna Cc: SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Proposed Self Storage Warehouse Project Mme Fiala, We reside in Reflection Lakes at Naples. Our Board of Directors has brought to our attention that there is a self storage project on US 41 in East Naples to be built across from our houses. There is already a self storage project being developed at the bankrupted flea market 2 miles down the road which is built in front of yet another vehicle storage facility next to a cement plant. There is plenty of self storage facilities in East Naples. And we already have to deal with a lot of heavy vehicles traffic in our area. Therefore we oppose this idea to build another storage facility across from our street. Lucyl Lachance & Rene Drolet 14111 Mirror Ct Naples FL 34114 17A BrownleeMichael From: patcogswel11@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 3:20 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Proposed mini self storage warehouses to be built on U.S.41 Dear Collier County Board Member; I am writing you with regard to the proposed mini self storage warehouses to be built on U.S.41 across from Naples Reserve Blvd. As a Real Estate Appraiser I have seen East Naples slowly crawling out from under the stigma that it had been living under. This has occurred primarily due to the new level of quality construction that has been built in this area over the last decade. With East Naples being one of the few areas for Naples to expand, this high level of construction will only continue if we maintain that level of quality throughout. That does not include an "industrial looking" warehouse project being built in the middle of a residential area. You placed a building moratorium on projects of this "industrial looking" type just so the quality new construction will continue. A care facility is a residential community project which fits the area; NOT an "industrial looking"warehouse project. Thank you for your consideration, Pat Cogswell 1 1 7 A BrownleeMichael From: Guy St.Georges <stgeorge@vianet.ca> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 2:02 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Self storage warehouse US41 and Naples Reserve Blvd Dear Ms. Fiala, I remember your visit to our community with your staff and really appreciated the visibility and transparency you brought. I have just been made aware of the above project and object to its location. Not only will it be visible from our Community but it does lend itself to a residential neighborhood. I would appreciate if you could register my objection and request that you consider another location. Thank you Guy St.Georges 14675 Fern Lake Ct. Naples, FL 34114 23-919-3455 Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: Lynn Livingston <redwingnut1@me.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 11:16 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Self Storage Warehouse Attachments: Warehouse Fiala.pdf Dear Commissioner Fiala, Please read my attached letter. Thank you, Aubrey Livingston 14587 Manchester Dr Naples, FL 34114 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: Kathy Mercier<222mercjr@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2018 9:10 AM To: FialaDonna; Burt.Saunders@colliercounty.gov Cc: SolisAndy; Penny.Taylor@colliercounty.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercounty.gov County Officials, Information has been brought to all of us home owners in Reflection Lakes, Naples Reserve and Fiddlers Creek about a proposed commercial structure in our residential area that may be built. This would be a commercial storage facility on 41 South across from Naples Reserve Blvd. and Reflection Lakes Community.Also it would boarder behind Fiddlers Creek. Many of the homes in Reflection Lakes would see this structure from their homes. Anyone driving out of Naples Reserve would also see this at the end of their beautiful street. Between Reflection Lakes, Naples Reserve and Fiddlers Creek about 2000 homes would be affected by this eye sore.All of us in our community would benefit more from stores and restaurants on 41 South as our community expands and new homes are build on this side of Naples. It is refreshing to know we have finally gotten some stores and restaurants on Collier and 41. We have enough gas stations, car washes and storage units along 41 South. Please think of what you would want built near where you live I don't think it would be this eye sore . We were told that this was going to come up for decision on May 3rd. 2018 at 9am. Thank You Kathy E. Mercier 14468 Grapevine Dr. Naples Fl. 34114. Reflection Lakes Community Sent from my iPad 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: Deb Avery <lowsalt©live.com> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2018 8:48 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: U.S. 41 storage unit proposal vote NO Regarding the Proposed Self Storage Warehouse Project on U.S. 41 across from Naples Reserve Blvd. Dear Donna Fiala Dear Andy Solis Dear Burt Saunders Dear Penny Taylor Dear Bill McDaniel A mini self storage warehousing unit for U.S. 41 is not what our neighborhood of Reflection Lakes wants. We would like this project rejected, right now. We do not want an "industrial looking" building right across from our home. We have a low fence. U.S. 41 was built up higher and wider and now much louder, we do not need to add a storage unit to this also. Please vote NO on this project. Please! Homeowner in Reflection Lakes Deb Avery 14848 Canton Court Naples FL 34114 701-306-9908 lowsalt@live.com Thank you for your time. 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: Christina Baron <ccgbaron@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 12:38 PM To: SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; FialaDonna Subject: Self Storage Warehouse Project on US 41 across from Naples Reserve Blvd. Dear Board Members, It has come to my attention that a mini self storage warehouse is petitioning to be built across from my community at Reflection Lakes. I am taking the time to write you this email because since I purchased my brand new home 4 years ago, the expansion of route 41 has made my home unsellable. So I definitely believe that an unsightly commercial storage warehouse would not help the situation at all. I realize that the area is growing rapidly and I guess that's a good thing. But to be fair, maybe this facility should be built in a space where homes haven't been built yet. And potential buyers can make the decision if they want to look at that from their lanai before purchasing a new home. But to put something that unattractive in view of homes that have already been affected by the road expansion, isn't right. I don't know if you are the same Board Members that determined not to put anything between my community and the new roadway. I know that we have had a Route 41 committee trying to work with the county to possibly get more trees planted on our side to help block out the noise to no avail. But I see many trees and beautiful landscape being planted on Collier Blvd and Santa Barbara. I tried to sell my brand new home two years ago and couldn't because of the road noise. I will be trying again very soon to sell my home but I am concerned that the same reaction is going to prevent me from actually selling it. So please take into consideration how these projects affect home values around them. Sincerely, Christina Baron 14764 Cranberry Court Naples, FL 34114 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: Paul Kraska <ptkraska@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:42 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Regarding the Proposed Self Storage Warehouse Project Regarding the Proposed Self Storage Warehouse Project. I do not believe a storage unit is needed at this site. Also need to consider that Naples Reserve Blvd is the entrance to two communities Reflection lakes with 562 residences and Naples Reserve approximately 1200 residents and a traffic will be needed at this intersection for pedestrian and motor vehicle safety reasons 174 BrownleeMichael From: gmdfl <gmdfl@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 4:29 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Route 41 proposed storage facility. I live in Reflection Lakes and am against this project. Unsightly for our community. Inconsistent with near by housing. How many of these type of things do we need? Respectfully, Gail Dennis Sent from my Verizon,Samsung Galaxy smartphone 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: Laura Kallenberg <bail411k@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 3:58 PM To: FialaDonna; burt.saunders@colliercounty.com; penny.taylor@colliercounty.gov; bill.mcdaniel@colliercounty.gov; andy.solis@colliercounty.gov Subject: Re: Storage unit on route 41 Sent from my iPad >On Apr 20, 2018, at 3:48 PM, Laura Kallenberg<bail411k@yahoo.com>wrote: > It is with great dismay that we have learned of the proposed self storage on route 41 across from Naples reserve blvd. how in the world can this be even considered? I think our area is being over built and for an area that is being ignored by the county, maybe you will hear our opposition to this. We feel like the Cinderella being ignored by the evil stepsisters (the county). We are getting dumped on enough, please vote this down and keep what little wooded area we have left. Enough is enough.Soon we are going to look like a city and that's not why we moved here. Shame on anyone who votes for this.Thank you > Laura kallenberg > 14788 canton ct > Naples >Sent from my iPad 1 BrownleeMichael 17 A From: Bill and Jenny Mourning <billjeni@live.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 9:52 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Regarding the Proposed Self Storage Warehouse Project across from Naples Reserve and Reflection Lakes Dear Donna, As residents in this area we are pleading with you to consider the impact this proposed project would have on this residential area. We already have major issues with traffic and speeding. We also have hundreds of new homes under construction and hundreds more that land is just being cleared for. We have an elementary school, a middle school and a fire station as well. This area is not a good fit for a commercial property. There is much land available just north of here on 41 East and Collier that is probably already zoned commercial. We know you will take all of this into consideration when it's decision time. Thank you for your time and all you do for our County. Regards, Bill and Jenny Mourning Sent from Outlook 1 17 BrownleeMichael „ From: Kathleen Bouffard <kmbouffard@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 3:44 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Proposed Storage Warehouse on 41 As a full time resident of Reflection Lakes, I am totally against building another storage facility.There are at least 5 existing facilities within a 10 mile radius of our community. We do not need another one in our residential area. Sincerely, Kathi Bouffard Sent from my iPad 1 17 A ., BrownleeMichael From: roger hatfield <hatroger@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 1:51 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: RE: East Naples Storage Unit Ms. Brownlee: Thank you for replying to my email regarding the proposed storage unit facility across US 41 from our Reflection Lakes Community. We could not attend yesterday's meeting regarding this proposal. My wife Mary had an MRI; sometimes health issues outweigh zoning issues. But please let Ms. Fiala know that we are adamantly against this facility being built. And I am sure the residents of Naples Reserve do not want this across from the entrance to their community. Hopefully many people have expressed this and the Commissioners will void/cancel this proposal. Sincerely, Roger Hatfield On Wed,4/25/18, FialaDonna <Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov>wrote: Subject: RE: East Naples Storage Unit To: "roger hatfield" <hatroger@yahoo.com> Date: Wednesday,April 25, 2018, 3:33 PM Thank you for your email to Commissioner Fiala regarding the proposed Storage Unit Facility near your community. We have learned that the applicant will be appearing before the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at the next meeting on Thursday May 3rd where you can express your feelings to the board members. The meeting starts at gam and is held in the Commission Chambers at the address below. If it is approved by the CCPC, it still would need to go before the Board of County Commissioners at a future meeting for final approval (these meetings are also open to the public). As you may be aware, Commissioner Fiala sought a moratorium on additional storage units,gas stations and pawn shops on the East Trail but she didn't have enough votes from the other Commissioners to pass the moratorium. Regards, Michael Brownlee Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Donna Fiala, District#1 W. Harmon Turner Building- Bldg "F" 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite#303 Naples, FL 34112 P: (239) 252-8601 F: (239) 252-6578 NOTE: Our County Email Addresses have changed. My new email 1 address is Michael.Brownlee@CollierCountyFL.gov 17 A Subscribe to Commissioner Fiala's Newsletter here. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Original Message From: roger hatfield [mailto:hatroger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 2:33 PM To: FialaDonna <Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: East Naples Storage Unit Ms. Fiala: My residence is 14338 Manchester Dr. Naples--Reflection Lakes Community. Please know that my wife and I are highly against plans to build a storage unit right across US 41 from our Reflection Lakes Community. Please re-consider and do NOT allow that facility to be built right across our community and right across Naples Reserve Community. This area is growing; another residential plan is being built right across from Manatee School; I'm sure you're aware of this. We do not want or need a storage unit in our residential area. Feel free to call me at 239 2314548 or email or US mail me to discuss this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Roger and Mary Hatfield Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 2 17A BrownleeMichael From: Eileen Burns <eburns110@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 5:52 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Proposed storage units opposit Reflection Lake entrance Sent from my iPhone. I realize from having met you that I am preaching to the choir but please note my strong objection to this purpose for that property.There are many storage units on 41 and Collier Blvd. would love to see more restaurants(no fast foods please) at that location or possibly an assisted living facility. Please feel free to contact me if any questions. Eileen Burns 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: rick thomas <poolman3002003@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 4:34 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Proposed Self storage Warehouse project Hello my name is Richard Thomas I live at 14579 Manchester dr, Naples in Reflection Lakes and I am writing to all of you in regards to the proposed mini self storage warehouse across from Naples Reserve Blvd on U.S 41.This is a big mistake we have to many storage facilities already and they are a big eye sore especially in a residential area.There are many residents in our community alone that are NOT in favor of this eye sore any where near our community, please be understanding of our feeling on this matter we DON'T NEED OR WANT this in our neighbor hood there are plenty of commercial properties that you can put this facility at!! Thank you Richard Thomas Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 1 ? A BrownleeMichael From: carol sheridan <queenmilly@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 5:24 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Proposed Storage Warehouse Ms.Fiala, I am a resident of Reflections Lakes and have heard of a proposal for a storage facility, located very close and within visual sight of my community. I am against any structure of this type as this would have an adverse effect on the community, aesthetically as well as economically. Carol Sheridan 14733 Cranberry Ct Naples, 34114 Sent from Outlook 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: Ann Marie Kraft-Ziske <annmariez@kraftwerks.net> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 9:34 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Proposed Storage Facility-Adjacent to Collier County Reflection Lakes Dear Collier County Commissioner, As a resident of Reflection Lakes community located on US 41 and Naples Reserve, we are writing to express our concern and objection to the proposed storage facility to be located adjacent to our home. Reflection Lakes is a beautiful and tranquil community. Locating industrial type facilities in such proximity will only degrade the neighborhood and surely decrease property values. Please consider denying this project. Our south Naples area is blossoming and attracting new residents daily. Again please deny this project, which certainly could be located in a more commercial/industrial corridor nearby. Thank you. Bob and Ann Marie Ziske 14678 Fern Lake Court Naples, FL 34114 Ann Marie Ziske KR -TYY ER S Creating space.Maximizing productivity. WBE Certified 716 876 9000 ext 1011 716 876 9398 fax www.kraftwerks.net 1 17 BrownleeMichael ~ From: Michael Boyer<byrmike@live.com> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 12:18 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Proposed Self Storage Warehouse Project at Naples Reserve Blvd. on U.S.41 The proposed self storage warehouse at Naples Reserve Blvd. and US 41 if built will negatively affect the property values at Naples Reserve and Reflection Lakes. Also, it will have a negative affect on our security and public safety in our communities. Not only would such a faculty be unsightly it will draw strangers to the entrances of our communities. Some of those strangers will not be of good moral, ethical and law abiding natures. Storage facilities are sometimes used for unlawful purposes and are often the target of break-ins. This business needs to be located in high traffic business area not in a residential environment. Your action on this matter will hopefully deserve our appreciation. 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: calderm310@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:41 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Proposed Self Storage Warehouse Project To the County Board I am writing this email to protest the proposed Storage Warehouse across from Reflection Lakes Subdivision. We have paid a great deal of money for our homes here in Reflection Lakes and we believe that the Storage Warehouse you're considering would be detrimental to the value of our homes. This was zoned as residential property. Please take this into consideration, would you want this Storage Warehouse across from your home? Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Marie Chiaro Reflection Lakes Homeowner 1 1? A BrownleeMichael From: Ronald Reid <ronaldcreid@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 8:26 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Cynthia Reid Subject: Proposed Mini Self Storage Warehouse Project Commissioner Fiala, Thanks for all you have done to improve East Naples! My wife Cynthia and I have been residents of Reflection Lakes of Naples since 2012. We moved here because of: • the great value of Lennar Homes and our home's great location on one of the many lakes in the community, • the potential for more beautiful homes being built in Reflection Lakes (completed by Neal Communities in 2017), • the potential for more beautiful homes being built around Reflection Lakes (e.g., Naples Reserve and the homes to come to land cleared by Argo at Manatee and Tamiami Trail) • the proximity to retail and restaurants at Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail In addition, we are very pleased with: • the recent expansion of retail and restaurants at Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail, • the expansion of the Eagle Lakes Community Center providing access to great fitness classes • the expansion of Tamiami Trail from 2 lanes to 6 along our neighborhood to Collier Boulevard and the plans for street lighting along the expanded roadway, • the plans for an overpass at Collier and Tamiami Trail The above improvements help add value to our home. However, the addition of a Mini Self Storage Warehouse next door to our community DOES NOT add value to our home and potentially will decrease the value of our home. A decrease in the value of our home is obviously not one of the reasons we chose to live in Reflection Lakes of Naples. PLEASE work with your fellow members of the Collier County Board of Commissioners to prevent the proposed Mini Self Storage Warehouse from being built in this residential neighborhood. Sincerely, Ronald and Cynthia Reid 14641 Fern Lake Court Naples, FL 34114 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: Patti <kpastaking@charter.net> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 11:01 AM To: FialaDonna; TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Proposed mini self storage warehousing We do Not feel this is appropriate for this residential area! We are residents of Reflection Lakes and wish for you to vote NO Thank You, Patricia & Kenneth Nuss Sent from my iPad 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: patcogswel11@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 3:20 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Proposed mini self storage warehouses to be built on U.S.41 Dear Collier County Board Member; I am writing you with regard to the proposed mini self storage warehouses to be built on U.S.41 across from Naples Reserve Blvd. As a Real Estate Appraiser I have seen East Naples slowly crawling out from under the stigma that it had been living under. This has occurred primarily due to the new level of quality construction that has been built in this area over the last decade. With East Naples being one of the few areas for Naples to expand, this high level of construction will only continue if we maintain that level of quality throughout. That does not include an "industrial looking" warehouse project being built in the middle of a residential area. You placed a building moratorium on projects of this "industrial looking" type just so the quality new construction will continue. A care facility is a residential community project which fits the area; NOT an "industrial looking"warehouse project. Thank you for your consideration, Pat Cogswell 17A BrownleeMichael From: Darrel Sparzo <dsparzo@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 4:26 PM To: FialaDonna Cc: sparzo D; Peggy M. A. Driscol; Rohm Roz Subject: Please vote against proposed storage facility on 41 near Reflection Lakes & Naples Reserve Dear Donna Fiala, My fiance and I spent our life savings to move into a quiet residential area in South Florida. We are very unhappy to learn about the proposed industrial-looking storage facility near our new home within view of our community at Reflection Lakes. Thank you so much in advance for your consideration! Sincerely, Darrel Sparzo & Peggy Driscol 14685 Sonoma Blvd Naples, FL 34114 317-250-0503 17A BrownleeMichael From: Kenneth Durning <kdurn@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 3:14 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Mini storage warehouse proposal Ms Fiala, I am writing this email to let you know I disapprove of the proposed mini storage warehouse to be located on US 41 across from Naples Reserve Blvd. This industrial type project is wrong for the residential area. I am a homeowner in the Reflection Lakes community. There are several storage warehouses on US 41 already and I believe this type of building detracts from the beauty and residential feel of the area. Please do not approve this type of building in our residential neighborhood. Thank you, Suzanne Durning Naples, Florida Sent from my iPhone 17A BrownleeMichael From: Susan Nash <bodiam@outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2018 11:41 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Objection to Self Storage Facility on US41 Dear Board Member, I respectfully submit my strong opposition to the above referenced project as a resident of Reflection Lakes Naples. Susan C. Nash 14310 Manchester Dr Naples FL 34114 Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone 1 11A BrownleeMichael From: Janet OConnell <janetoc8@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 8:54 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: No warehouse near Reflection Lakes entrance! Hello Commissioner Fiala...I'm glad you are still representing us. I live in the community of Reflection Lakes where you have come to visit us a few times presenting excellent town hall meetings! You are so very welcome here. It has recently come to our attention that a storage facility is going to be built near us on 41. This would be a disaster to our residential area (fancy Naples Reserve behind us with their wealthy residents will go ballistic!). Most of us in Reflection Lakes are middle class retirees who value our quiet surroundings and don't want to see it go down the drain. Stores are one thing we have to deal with but NOT a storage facility which will only further destroy our peace and quiet but also even worse bring more crime. Please don't allow this awful storage building to come here. Please also share my email with your comissioner colleagues. I watched the east coast of Florida ( I taught in Broward County for 30 years) get destroyed. I came over here in 2004 to escape. Now I'm seeing the same out of control development happening here. I came to Naples many years ago when it was truly a paradise...a quaint little fishing village! Please try to preserve what few nice areas still remain. Out here 2 miles east of the Collier/951 corner, we don't need awful buildings like storage facilities. I hope and pray that you can prevent this from happening.Thank you for your continual hard work. Most sincerely and respectfully, Janet M. O'Connell Reflection Lakes 14160 Winchester Ct. #1801 Naples, FL 34114 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: doug locascio <Doug@ldpurchasing.com> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 11:15 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: MINI STORAGE No mini storage across from Naples Reserve Blvd. on U.S.41 PLEASE! Doug Locascio L& D Purchasing Cell: (914) 774-2865 Office: (239) 228-5585 1 17A Brown lee Michael From: florida0323@gmail.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 7:04 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Mini storage unit I do not want a mini storage unit built near my home. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: Gayle Grucci <gaylegrucci@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 4:09 PM To: FialaDonna Cc: SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Mini storage on US41 Dear Collier County board members, We live in the Reflection Lakes community.We heard about the possibility of a storage warehouse being built on 41 across from the Naples Reserve Blvd.We are adamantly opposed to having this warehouse in our residential area. It will bring down our property values. Who will want to live in an area where there is industrial building?WE DON'T!!!! We want this to stay a residential area.We spent a great deal of money to build this home and would appreciate the board members taking this into consideration. We live here full time and we do vote. Please respect us and do not approve this application. Respectfully, Charles and Gayle Grucci 14756 Cranberry Court, Naples 1 1 7 A BrownleeMichael From: Linda Locascio <lindalocascio@Idpurchasing.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:17 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Mini Storage on 41 All— I live in Reflection Lakes and we do not want a mini storage across from Naples Reserve Blvd and 41. Thank you! Linda Locascio Principal/ President II oil L II PURCHASING C C?tifi d J fa i s-Ort ed Bwi itss. Cell#: 914-588-2339 LindaLocascioLDPurchasing.com Cer ti f r d Ni VB Wm:6 Business E , -se 1 114 BrownleeMichael From: Kathy Limyansky <kathyL@bhhsfloridarealty.net> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 12:35 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Mini Storage It was wonderful to hear you speak at the Marco office for Lunch and Learn and I also hope you had a fantastic birthday!! I know from hearing you speak that you will not be supporting the new mini storage across from Reflection Lake, but as a resident on that 951/41 corner I do believe we have hit our limit on storage facilities E Fir-1 Looking forward to your next talk!! Kathy with BHHS Florida Realty... Sent from my iPhone 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: Dale Nash <kilo34@outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2018 8:53 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Mini self storage Ms. Fiala, As a resident of Reflection Lakes, I wish to express my opposition to the proposal to build a self mini storage complex on Rt. 41 across the street from Naples Reserve Blvd. Thank you, Dale Nash 14310 Manchester Dr. Naples, FL 34114 Sent from my Galaxy Tab A 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: Fernando Resendes <fernandoresendes@cs.com> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 8:23 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: mini self storage warehousing Greetings, My name is Fernando Resendes resident of 14361 Manchester Drive in Reflection Lakes Naples. I am sending this email to you because I am not in favor of this proposal of the "mini self storage warehousing" Respectfully, Fernando Resendes (239) 682-4771 fernandoresendes@cs.com 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: Dianne Yutko <dianneyutko@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2018 3:27 PM To: SolisAndy; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject: Mini Self Storage Warehouse We live in Reflection Lakes and have been informed that a mini self storage warehouse is possibly going to be built in our area. As we pass these facilities going into Naples and surrounding areas we fail to see why a residential area with many homes and more being built this year would wish to have a commercial/industrial complex built in the middle of so many residences. There is nothing pretty about boxes, streets getting to boxes, and metal gates to keep thief minded people out of getting into boxes. So far, this area of town is lovely looking and we would like to see it not becoming tacky. With 50,000 storage units already across the country storing a variety of junk, it seems the great need? for this type of building could be accommodated in an area where there currently is commercial/industrial which will not ruin the scenery for home owners who have paid a lot of money to not look at warehouses. Please consider this a request to Not Allow building a mini self storage warehouse. Dianne and Phillip Yutko, 14663 Fern Lake Court, Naples FL 1 1 ) A BrownleeMichael From: Rosemarie Jones <rosemarie12999@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 4:33 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Mini self storage unit I would like to have recorded my disapproval with the proposed mini self storage warehouse that is possible being built on US41 directly across from Naples Reserve Blvd. I reside in Reflection Lakes and would not approve of this industrial building being built directly across from our community. Vote no on this agenda. Thank you Rosemarie Jones Reflection Lakes resident Sent from my iPhone 1 ! 7A BrownleeMichael From: roger hatfield <hatroger@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 2:33 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: East Naples Storage Unit Ms. Fiala: My residence is 14338 Manchester Dr. Naples--Reflection Lakes Community. Please know that my wife and I are highly against plans to build a storage unit right across US 41 from our Reflection Lakes Community. Please re-consider and do NOT allow that facility to be built right across our community and right across Naples Reserve Community. This area is growing; another residential plan is being built right across from Manatee School; I'm sure you're aware of this. We do not want or need a storage unit in our residential area. Feel free to call me at 239 2314548 or email or US mail me to discuss this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Roger and Mary Hatfield 1 17A Brown leeMichael From: Pilgrim, Jeff<jeff.pilgrim@rbc.com> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 2:31 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Concerns about Potential Self Storage Construction Ms. Fiala, Mr. Solis, Mr. Saunders, Ms.Taylor and Mr. McDaniel; Thank you for the opportunity to express my concern on the planning of a potential self-storage facility in the area of Naples Reserve Blvd. on U.S.41. As a home owner in the area, I am concerned for several reasons about this potential development. First there is actually an amazingly vibrant wildlife thriving in that area, I have on many occasions seen deer, otters, various reptile, birds and insects, I walk there regularly and often watch for the wildlife. Disturbing this habitat for something as meaningless as a self-storage is not a worthy trade off. I know this is a personal opinion, but I just don't think it's a usefulness use of the space to disturb it. I also don't think the voting public would be advocating for this. If it were homes, or a park, or a school, even a place of worship I wouldn't be as against it, these are necessities in our society. Storage lockers are not necessities, the people who need these things should just have less stuff, or have the mobile storage lockers on their driveways or use their garages, there are alternatives. Secondly, if the corporate investors that are looking to lobby in some way for this to occur I assure you the citizens of the area on mass would not want this, a small number perhaps, but if you think about it this is not a winning endeavour, they may argue it creates jobs, outside of the construction jobs that are temporary, I would bolded disagree on the job creation, perhaps 1 or 2 jobs for thousands of square feet, the trade-off is an absolute loser. Please don't allow this to happen, respectfully yours, Jeff Pilgrim A concerned neighbor If you received this email in error,please advise the sender(by return email or otherwise)immediately.You have consented to receive the attached electronically at the above-noted email address;please retain a copy of this confirmation for future reference. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur,veuillez en aviser I'expediteur immediatement,par retour de courriel ou par un autre moyen.Vous avez accepte de recevoir le(s)document(s)ci-joint(s)par voie electronique a l'adresse courriel indiquee ci-dessus;veuillez conserver une copie de cette confirmation pour les fins de reference future. 1 I? A BrownleeMichael From: Dawn Chard <charddawnc©gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 10:44 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Collier County Planning Committee Meeting May 3 Dear Ms. Fiala, I am writing to share my concerns in regards to the proposed mini self-storage warehousing which will be located across from Naples Reserve Blvd. on U.S.41 within view of our Reflection Lakes community. It is no secret that East Naples is one of the most expanding regions in Collier County. The area has already seen tremendous growth in new communities and restaurants. Real estate experts indicate that this area remains a highly sought-after residential address. To that end, I speak for not only my family but also for my neighbors and do not wish to see our residentia/neighborhood transformed into the sort of area currently seen elsewhere in Collier County. We moved to this part of the County for a reason....we enjoy the quiet, relaxing residentia/atmosphere. Our proximity to Collier Seminole State Park and to the "outskirts" of the Everglades and also to Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, bring a residential rural environment worthy of preserving. Ms. Fiala, I kindly ask that you please reconsider this proposal. Thank you, Dawn and Kevin Chard 14546 Lanier Court Naples, FL 34114 1 17A BrownleeMichael From: jennifer<jennadamson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 11:07 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Against mini storage warehouse on 41 hwy and naples reserve bld. Donna Fiala, We are writing about our concern over the plans to construct a mini self storage warehouse at us 41 and Naples Reserve Blvd. We live at 14195 fall Creek Court in Reflection Lakes and fell this industrial like project will detract from the Florida style of life we so much enjoy and will bring down our property value.You would not want this type of project in your backyard.These types of projects should not be close to large residential areas such as Reflections lakes or Naples Reserve. Please reconsider your plans and move this project elsewhere. Roger and Jennifer Adamson 14195 Fall Creek Ct. Naples, Fl. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 !7f 17 A D. Lighting shall be fully shielded and directed so as to prevent glare on adjacent residential or TTRVC zoned properties. E. Outdoor amplified sound is prohibited, except in conjunction with an approved temporary use permit and in such limited cases shall be restricted to the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. F. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. G. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. a e 2 S l .5 , tee,/kf H. An Enhanced 15 foot wide Type D buffer shall be provide along US 41 (Tamiami Trail East). In addition to the required canopy trees he buffer shall include a continuous undulating double hedgerow spaced 3' on center. Plantings shall be 3 gallon and at least 24" in height at time of planting for first row hedges (closest to the right-of-way) and 4 gallon and at least 24" in height at the time of planting for the second row of hedges. Page 14 of 14 5 2018).docx H:\2016\2016009\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Tones Family Trust CPUD(PL-20160000226)