Agenda 10/13/2020 Item # 9C (Ordinance - Germain Immokalee CPUD)10/13/2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a
hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation
to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations
for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate
zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real
property from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as Germain Immokalee
CPUD, to allow a new and used automotive dealership up to 80,000 square feet on the
property located on the south side of Immokalee Road approximately 0.6 miles west of
Interstate 75, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 8.97± acres;
and by providing an effective date. [PL20190000451] (This is a companion to Agenda Item
9.B)
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staff’s findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)
regarding the above-referenced petition, render a decision regarding this rezoning petition and ensure the
project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's
interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road
approximately 0.6 miles west of Interstate 75, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 8.97+/- acres. The petitioner is requesting that the Board of County
Commissioners consider an application to rezone the property from a Rural Agriculture (A) zoning
district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district. The subject property is
comprised of one parcel and is owned by Hubert Scherer Trust c/o Mary Huckstep. This petition seeks to
rezone the property to CPUD to allow for the development of a new and used “luxury” automotive
dealership up to 80,000 square feet of floor area, and related accessory uses.
FISCAL IMPACT: The PUD Rezone (PUDZ) by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier
County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build-out, will maximize its authorized level of
development. However, if the PUD Rezone is approved, a portion of the land could be developed, and
the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities.
The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to help offset the
impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects
identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as needed to
maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the
requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by
Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with
the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees
collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Please note that
impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning
Commission to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: The proposed PUD is inconsistent with the
GMP, unless the Board approves the companion GMPA first or concurrent with the PUD and the uses
and intensities align. (See Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review.)
9.C
Packet Pg. 126
10/13/2020
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s July 23, 2019, Trip
Generation Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP) using the then applicable 2018 and the current 2019 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 i mpact 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.”
Staff finding:
According to the TIS provided with this petition, the requested PUDZ rezone proposes an 80,000 square -
foot New Automobile Sales development that will generate a projected +/- 166 PM peak hour, two-way
trips that will occur on the following adjacent roadway network.
The trips generated by this development will occur on the following adjacent roadway link:
Roadway Link 2018
AUIR
LOS
2019
AUIR
LOS
Current Peak Hour
Peak Direction Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
2018
Remaining
Capacity
2019
Remaining
Capacity
Immokalee
Road
Livingston
Road to I-75
D C 3,500/East 871 971
Based on the 2019 AUIR’s, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
proposed trips for this project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be
found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this
project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site
consists of 8.97 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 1.35 (15%) acres of native vegetation shall be
placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County.
9.C
Packet Pg. 127
10/13/2020
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC
heard petition PUDZ-PL20190000451 on August 20, 2020, and by a vote of 6 to 0 recommended to
forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval with required changes to the PUD
as explained below. There are letters of opposition with this petition. As such, this petition will be placed
on Regular Agenda.
At the August 20, 2020 CCPC meeting, the CCPC members had requested modifications to the PUD
Document with regard to no lighting of pole or ground signage in the front of the property, the addition of
luxury car language in Exhibit A, and a transportation commitment regarding joint access with the
neighboring parcel to the west. The changes were accepted by staff, and these revisions were added to the
Ordinance.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site-specific rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to
a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as Germain
Immokalee CPUD. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent
with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners,
should it consider denying the rezone to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory,
or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of
the listed criteria below.
Criteria for CPUD Rezones
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval
or not.
1. Consider: 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.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, 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? Findings and
recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed CPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: 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.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring
the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
8. Consider: Conformity with CPUD 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
9.C
Packet Pg. 128
10/13/2020
regulations.
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future
land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed CPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern?
11. Would the requested CPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change 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?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent
property in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot (“reasonably”) be used in accordance
with existing zoning? (a “core” question…)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: 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.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed CPUD rezone 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 [Code ch.106, art.II], as
amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the CPUD rezone request that the
Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,
9.C
Packet Pg. 129
10/13/2020
safety, and welfare?
The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written
materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies,
letters from interested persons, and the oral testimony presented at the Board hearing as these items relate
to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney’s Office. This item has
been reviewed as to form and legality, and an affirmative vote of four is necessary for Board approval.
(HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION: If the Board approves the companion GMP amendment, then staff concurs
with the recommendation of the CCPC, which is reflected in the attached Ordinance and recommends that
the Board approve the applicant’s request to rezone to the CPUD zoning district.
Prepared by: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (PDF)
2. Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance 9-1-20 (PDF)
3. Attachment B- FLUE Consistency Memo (PDF)
4. [Linked] Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (PDF)
5. Attachment D - Opposition Letters (PDF)
6. Attachment E - Waiver Applicant for hybrid quasi-judicial hearing- Germain Immokalee Rd
(PDF)
7. Attachment F - Property Hearing Sign (PDF)
8. legal ad - companion items 13442 & 11805 (PDF)
9.C
Packet Pg. 130
10/13/2020
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.C
Doc ID: 11805
Item Summary: This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members.
Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area
of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning
classification of the herein described real property from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as Germain
Immokalee CPUD, to allow a new and used automotive dealership up to 80,000 square feet on the
property located on the south side of Immokalee Road approximately 0.6 miles west of Interstate 75, in
Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 8.97± acres; and by providing an effective
date. [PL20190000451] (This is a companion to Agenda Item 9.B)
Meeting Date: 10/13/2020
Prepared by:
Title: – Zoning
Name: Tim Finn
09/01/2020 4:47 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
09/01/2020 4:47 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 09/04/2020 8:55 AM
Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 09/09/2020 9:32 AM
Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 09/14/2020 9:21 AM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 09/16/2020 9:29 AM
Growth Management Department James C French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 09/18/2020 5:21 PM
Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 09/21/2020 8:24 AM
County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 09/23/2020 4:17 PM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 09/29/2020 2:15 PM
Office of Management and Budget Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Completed 09/29/2020 6:48 PM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 10/04/2020 10:38 AM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 10/13/2020 9:00 AM
9.C
Packet Pg. 131
PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 1 of 13
Revised: June 4, 2020
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: JULY 16, 2020
SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20190000451; GERMAIN IMMOKALEE CPUD
COMPANION ITEM: PL20190000454/CPSS-2019-5
______________________________________________________________________________
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owners:
Hubert Scherer Trust c/o Mary Huckstep
9027 Alturas Ln #3305
Naples, FL 34113
Contract Purchaser: Agent:
Flavio Galasso, Vice-President Thomas D. Barber, AICP
JAZ Real Estate Holdings, LLC Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc.
11286 Tamiami Trail North 7400 Trail Blvd, Unit 200
Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34108
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
application to rezone an 8.97+/- acres property from the Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district to a
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district. The subject property is comprised
of one parcel and is owned by Hubert Scherer Trust c/o Mary Huckstep.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road approximately 0.6 miles west
of Interstate 75, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 8.97+/- 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 a new and
used automotive dealership up to 80,000 square feet of floor area and related accessory uses.
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 2 of 13
Revised: June 4, 2020
9.C.1Packet Pg. 133Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 3 of 13
Revised: June 4, 2020
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 Germain Immokalee CPUD:
North:
Collier Boulevard, a six-lane arterial roadway, then developed residential, with
a current zoning designation of Carlton Lakes PUD (3.4 DU/AC), which is
approved for residential, commercial, recreational, conservation and water
management uses
East: Developed commercial and water management facilities, with a current zoning
designation of Gaspar Station CPUD (26 DU/AC), which is approved for
commercial, water management facilities, and hotel/motel uses
South: Developed multi-family residential, with a current zoning designation of
Livingston Lakes RPUD (6.99 DU/AC), which is approved for multi-family
residential units
West: Undeveloped land, with a current zoning designation of Agriculture (A) zoning
district.
Aerial Photo (Property Appraiser GIS)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 4 of 13
Revised: June 4, 2020
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The approximate 8.97-acre subject site is identified as Urban
Designation, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The FLUE states Urban designated areas
will accommodate both residential and a variety of non-residential uses including commercial uses
subject to criteria identified in the FLUE. The petition’s site is not consistent with any FLUE
provision to allow commercial zoning that will accommodate a car sales use. There is currently a
submittal for a companion Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (SSGMPA)
petition (PL20190000454) to create a new Subdistrict intended to allow the proposed use. This
rezoning petition cannot be approved until such time as the SSGMPA has been approved and the
uses and intensities in this PUD align with those in the GMPA. 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 July 23, 2019
Trip Generation Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of
the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the then applicable 2018 and the current 2019 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.”
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 5 of 13
Revised: June 4, 2020
Staff finding:
According to the TIS provided with this petition, the requested PUDZ rezone proposes an 80,000
square foot New Automobile Sales development that will generate a projected +/- 166 PM peak
hour, two-way trips that will occur on the following adjacent roadway network.
The trips generated by this development will occur on the following adjacent roadway link:
Roadway Link 2018
AUIR
LOS
2019
AUIR
LOS
Current Peak Hour
Peak Direction
Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
2018
Remaining
Capacity
2019
Remaining
Capacity
Immokalee
Road
Livingston
Road to I-
75
D C 3,500/East 871 971
Based on the 2019 AUIR’s, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate
the proposed trips for this project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the subject
rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has
found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element
(CCME). The project site consists of 8.97 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 1.35 (15%)
acres of native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as
this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of
consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the
GMP.
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 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 recommendation. The
CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for its recommendation to the Board, who in
turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning or amendment request. In addition, staff
offers the following analyses:
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 6 of 13
Revised: June 4, 2020
environmental concerns. The Master Plan illustrates the minimum PUD preserve requirement in
accordance with LDC 3.05.07. The required preserve is 1.35 acres (15% of 8.97 acres). No listed
animal or plant species were observed on the property.
Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance
with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval.
Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the north
wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). The developer has
committed to extending the existing 8” County water main from Useppa Way to the potential
future connection point on the western boundary to facilitate future water distribution system
connections.
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 landscape buffers on the master plan are consistent with LDC
requirements
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
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. After this review, staff has
determined that the proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed CPUD requests a maximum gross area of 80,000 square feet of commercial space
for automotive dealers (SIC code 5511). SIC Code 5511 includes sale of both new and used
vehicles. The proposed CPUD also includes several accessory uses, including:
1. Automotive Parking for vehicular storage for new and used sales only. (7521)
2. Car wash, subject to the provisions of LDC Section 5.05.11.
3. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses
and structures, including, but not limited to:
Showrooms, carwash, offices, service facilities and repair facilities.
4. Display of new and used automobiles for sale, provided it does not adversely affect
pedestrian or vehicular traffic or public health. Vehicle display is prohibited within any
required landscape buffer, and allowed within front, side and rear yard setbacks.
The proposed CPUD includes a maximum building height of 55 feet zoned and 60 feet for principal
and accessory uses. The property to the north, Carlton Lakes PUD has maximum heights between
35 to 50 for residential uses and 50 feet for commercial uses, the property to the west, Gaspar
Station CPUD, has maximum height of 50 feet for commercial uses and 60 feet for motels/hotels.
The residential property, to the south, Livingston Lakes PUD, has a maximum height of three
stories and the undeveloped property to the west is zoned Agriculture (A) with a maximum height
of 35 feet. The proposed CPUD will be required to meet the architectural and site design standards
in the LDC at the time of site plan approval.
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 7 of 13
Revised: June 4, 2020
The proposed CPUD includes a front setback from the Immokalee Road right-of-way of 50% of
the building height, but not less than 25 feet; however, structures 50 feet or more will require an
additional 25 feet plus one additional foot of setback for each foot of building height over 50 feet.
The south, west, and east property setbacks will have 25-foot setbacks. Additionally, 30 percent
of the property will be designated as open space and included in this open space calculation is a
1.35 acre preserve area, also located along the south boundary that will separate the CPUD from
the Livingston Lakes PUD.
The Master Plan proposes a 15-foot wide “Type D” buffer along Immokalee Road on the north
boundary of the PUD, and a 15-foot “Type B” buffer along the east, west, and south boundaries
of the PUD. These buffers are consistent with the required buffers of the surrounding properties.
The locations of buildings, setbacks, and open space contribute to the project’s compatibility with
the surrounding neighborhood.
Transportation review staff has determined that the proposed CPUD will not exceed Level of
Service Standards on Immokalee Road.
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.” Staff offers the following analysis:
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 subject site fronts on Immokalee Road. Water distribution and wastewater
transmission mains are readily available along Immokalee Road and at the eastern
boundary of the PUD, on Useppa Way, and there are adequate water and wastewater
treatment capacities to serve the proposed PUD. Drainage solutions would be evaluated in
connection with SDP/platting and construction permits.
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
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 8 of 13
Revised: June 4, 2020
relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion
of this staff report (subject to approval of the companion GMPA).
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.
As described in the Staff Analysis section of this staff report subsection Landscape Review,
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.
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. The CCWSD has sufficient
treatment capacities for water and wastewater services to the project. Conveyance
capacities must be confirmed at the time of development permit application. 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, including readily available County water
and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by
the petitioner, and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously 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.
No deviations are proposed in connection with this request to rezone to CPUD.
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 9 of 13
Revised: June 4, 2020
Rezone Findings:
LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show
that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable”:
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. (subject to approval of the companion GMPA)
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.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
As shown on the zoning maps and aerial included on pages 2 and 3 of this report, the
existing district boundaries are logically drawn. The proposed PUD zoning boundaries
follow the property ownership boundaries. The boundary of the subject parcel is illustrated
in the zoning maps and aerial in this staff report on pages 2 and 3.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed rezone 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
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 10 of 13
Revised: June 4, 2020
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 adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time,
i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation
Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first
development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply
with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development
approvals are sought.
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 current zoning designation of Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district includes a
maximum allowable height for principal uses of 35 feet. The proposed CPUD includes a
maximum allowable height of commercial buildings of 55 feet zoned and 60 feet actual.
The proposed CPUD also eliminates the potential for numerous manufacturing uses or
other uses that could impact light and air to adjacent areas.
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.
Properties to the north, east, and south are developed, whereas the property to the west is
undeveloped, 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.
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 11 of 13
Revised: June 4, 2020
The proposed CPUD 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 are not permitted, according to the existing
classification.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County.
Staff is of the opinion that 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.
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.
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 12 of 13
Revised: June 4, 2020
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 BCC during its advertised public hearing.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The applicant conducted a NIM on August 22, 2019 at the First Congregational Church of Naples
located at 6630 Immokalee Road. The meeting commenced at approximately 6:02 p.m. and ended
at 6:38 p.m. The applicant’s agent explained the request for the proposed rezone and the
companion small-scale GMP amendment.
Rich Yovanovich, the agent, conducted the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and
staff, and an overview of the proposed CPUD rezoning application. Mr. Yovanovich explained
that the small-scale GMP amendment and the PUD rezone will allow for office uses and a luxury
auto dealership with associated uses. There will be preserves on the south portion of the property
with required landscape buffers. Following the agent’s presentation, the meeting was opened up
to attendees to make comments and ask the consultant team questions regarding the proposed
development. The concerns the attendees raised were hours of operation, lighting, noise, traffic,
deliveries at night, curb cuts, home values going down, environmental impacts, lighted signage,
and rooftop storage of vehicles. No commitments were made. A copy of the sign-in sheet, handouts,
and NIM summary are included in the backup materials in Attachment C.
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.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on June 4, 2020.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of
approval.
Attachments:
A) Proposed Ordinance
B) FLUE Consistency Memo
C) Application/Backup Materials
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance 9-1-20 (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance 9-1-20 (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance 9-1-20 (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance 9-1-20 (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
9.C.2Packet Pg. 148Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance 9-1-20 (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance 9-1-20 (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance 9-1-20 (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance 9-1-20 (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance 9-1-20 (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance 9-1-20 (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 2
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
MEMORANDUM
To: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner
Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section
From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner
Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: February 18, 2020
Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ – PL20190000451 - REV 5
PETITION NAME: Germain Immokalee Road PUDZ
REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting to rezone approximately ±8.97-acres from “A” – Rural, Agricultural
Zoning District to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District to allow for New and Used
(Luxury) Car Sales (SIC 5511) limited to a maximum of 80,000 square feet of gross floor area (which is a C-4
permitted use). The proposed CPUD includes a list of Accessory Uses that are associated with the principal uses,
such as car wash, offices, showrooms, service facilities and repair facilities. Based on Staff reviews, Submittal 2
revised the Master Plan (including a reduction in total acreage); PUD Documents: Exhibits A, F, and G; and the
Traffic Impact Statement. Based on Staff comments, Submittal 3 revised Exhibits A, B, C – Master Plan, D, F, G,
I, Disclosure of Interest form, Covenant of Unified Control , Affidavit of Authorization, and the application.
Submittal 4 revised Exhibit G: Evaluation Criteria and PUD Documents Exhibits A-F; Submittal 5 revised Exhibits
A-F as commented by Planner and Attorney.
LOCATION: The ±8.97-acre subject site is located on the south side of Immokalee Road (CR 846), approximately
700 feet west of Juliet Blvd. and 0.6 miles west of I-75, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. The
subject site is adjacent to the western edge of the southwest quadrant of the Interchange Activity Center #4.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The approximate 8.97-acre subject site is identified as Urban
Designation, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the
Growth Management Plan (GMP).
The FLUE states Urban designated areas will accommodate both residential and a variety of non-residential uses
including commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the FLUE. The petition’s site is not consistent with any
FLUE provision to allow commercial zoning that will accommodate a car sales use. There is currently a submittal
for a companion Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (SSGMPA) petition (PL20190000454) to
create a new Subdistrict intended to allow the proposed use. This rezoning petition cannot be approved until such
time as the SSGMPA has been approved and the uses and intensities in this PUD align with those in the GMPA.
The CPUD effective date needs to be linked to the SSGMPA’s effective date.
9.C.3
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment B- FLUE Consistency Memo (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 2
Select FLUE Policies are given below, followed with [bracketed staff analysis].
FLUE Policy 5.6 states: “New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land
uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October
18, 2004, as amended).” [It is the responsibility of the Zoning Services staff, as part of their review of the
petition in its entirety, to perform the compatibility analysis.]
FLUE Policy 7.1 states: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties
to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection
spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The Master Plan, Exhibit ‘C’, shows two ingress/egress
points - one on Useppa Way, a local road which travels east to Juliet Blvd. (which also provides access to
Immokalee Road) and one ingress/egress on Immokalee Rd. (CR 846), which is an arterial road as identified
in the Transportation Element of the GMP.]
FLUE Policy 7.2 states: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce
vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The Master
Plan, Exhibit ‘C’, does not show any details of a circulation road within the project. However, this project
is planned as a single use and is not expected to include a road network, but rather include a parking lot with
drive aisles.]
FLUE Policy 7.3 states: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type.
The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation
Element. [The Master Plan, Exhibit ‘C’, shows ‘future’ interconnections with adjoining future development
to the west (currently undeveloped land), and an interconnection via Ussepa Way, to the commercial
businesses adjoining the eastern boundary. No interconnections are possible to the north or south, since
Immokalee Rd. (CR 846) adjoins the northern boundary and the Master Plan shows a preserve area along
the entire southern boundary of the subject site.]
FLUE Policy 7.4 states: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a
blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [Exhibit ‘A’
indicates Permitted and Accessory Uses are all commercial in nature and therefore, the blend of densities
and range of housing prices and types is not applicable. Exhibit ‘C’ shows 1.35 acres as Preserve. Exhibit
‘E’ List of Requested Deviations is not requesting any deviations including for sidewalks; therefore, the
developer is required to provide sidewalks per the Land Development Code. Because this is a commercial
site, there is less opportunity to provide an area for a civic facility.]
CONCLUSION
This rezone petition may only be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth
Management Plan if the companion SSGMPA (PL20190000454) is approved and goes into effect and the uses
and intensities in this PUD align with those in the GMPA. The CPUD ordinance needs to provide for an
effective date linked to the SSGMPA effective date.
PETITION ON CITYVIEW
cc: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section
PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee R5.docx
9.C.3
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment B- FLUE Consistency Memo (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
February 1, 2019 Page 1 of 11
Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or
PUD to PUD Rezone
PETITION NO
PROJECT NAME
DATE PROCESSED
PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code
Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative
Code
PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F.
APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION
Name of Property Owner(s): _________________________________________________________
Name of Applicant if different than owner: _____________________________________________
Address: _________________________City: _______________ State: _________ ZIP: ___________
Telephone: _______________________ Cell: ______________________ Fax: __________________
E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________
Name of Agent: ____________________________________________________________________
Firm: _____________________________________________________________________________
Address: ____________________________City: _______________ State: _______ ZIP: __________
Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: _______________________
E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________
Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that
you are in compliance with these regulations.
To be completed by staff
1 of 80
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
February 1, 2019 Page 2 of 11
REZONE REQUEST
This application is requesting a rezone from: _________________________ Zoning district(s) to the
________________________________ zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Property: _________________________________________________________
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________
Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________
Ordinance No.: ____________________________________________________________________
PROPERTY INFORMATION
On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property
covered by the application:
• If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a
separate legal description for property involved in each district;
• The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months,
maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre-application meeting; and
• The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise
concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required.
Section/Township/Range: / /
Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________
Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________
Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________
Size of Property: _______ ft. x _______ ft. = ________ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _________
Address/ General Location of Subject Property: __________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C):
Commercial Residential Community Facilities Industrial
Mixed Use Other: ________________
Agricultural
2 of 80
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
February 1, 2019 Page 3 of 11
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
Zoning Land Use
N
S
E
W
If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal
description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application.
Section/Township/Range: / /
Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________
Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________
Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________
ASSOCIATIONS
Required: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition.
Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County
Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774.
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
3 of 80
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
February 1, 2019 Page 4 of 11
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code,
staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the
applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement
describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup
materials and documentation in support of the request.
a. 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.
b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract,
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. Findings and
recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney.
c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth
Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision
allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of
that Sub-district, policy or other provision.)
d. 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.
e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvements and facilities, both public and private.
g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the
particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many
communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners
association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to asce rtain whether or not the
request is affected by existing deed restrictions.
4 of 80
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
February 1, 2019 Page 5 of 11
Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been
held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official
interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year?
Yes No if so please provide copies.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 E.
of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a
written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B.
of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements.
Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing
advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the
Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately.
RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall
record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments
or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of
the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the
Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the
recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided
to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said
Memorandum or Notice.
LDC subsection 10.02.08 D
This application will be considered “open” when the determination of “sufficiency” has been made
and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered
“closed” when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply
necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning,
amendment or change, for a period of 6 months. An application deemed “closed” will not receive
further processing and an application “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An
application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of
all application fees and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request
will be subject to the then current code.
5 of 80
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
February 1, 2019 Page 6 of 11
STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS
FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST
APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION
Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________
Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______
Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________
E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________
Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________
City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Section/Township/Range: / /
Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________
Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________
Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________
TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED
Check applicable system:
a. County Utility System
b. City Utility System
c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________
d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________
e. Septic System
TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED
Check applicable system:
a. County Utility System
b. City Utility System
c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________
d. Private System (Well)
Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________
Peak and Average Daily Demands:
A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________
B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________
If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date
service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________
6 of 80
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
February 1, 2019 Page 7 of 11
Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of
sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent
and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall
be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of
Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate
the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County
Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with
all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement
that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County
Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement
shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and
sewer systems.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at
the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any
provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve
the project shall be provided.
7 of 80
Thomas D. BarberFolio # 0019804000830 48 26 E1/2 OF E1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4, LESS N 100FT R/W 9.24 AC OR 1079 PG 1242CPUD8 of 80
9 of 80
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
February 1, 2019 Page 9 of 11
Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for:
PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code
Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code
PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code
The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time
of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date
application. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to
each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. A Model PUD Document is available online at
http://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=76983.
REQUIREMENTS # OF
COPIES REQUIRED NOT
REQUIRED
Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of
why amendment is necessary
Completed Application with required attachments (download latest version) 1
Pre-application meeting notes 1
Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1
Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1
Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 1
Completed Addressing Checklist 1
Warranty Deed(s) 1
List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 1
Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 1
Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 1
Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with
project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included
on aerial.
1
Statement of Utility Provisions 1
Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1
Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with
project planner at time of public hearings.
Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include
copies of previous surveys. 1
Traffic Impact Study 1
Historical Survey 1
School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 1
Electronic copy of all required documents 1
Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)+
List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this
document is separate from Exhibit E)
Checklist continues on next page
10 of 80
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
February 1, 2019 Page 10 of 11
Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and One 8 ½” x 11” copy
Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24” x 36” – Only if
Amending the PUD
Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1
Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1
*If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal
requirement
+The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet:
Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses
Exhibit B: Development Standards
Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 E. 1. of the Administrative Code
Exhibit D: Legal Description
Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each
Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments
If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas
Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239-
690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan.”
PLANNERS – INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS:
School District (Residential Components): Amy
Lockheart Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson
Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams & David Berra
Emergency Management: Dan Summers Immokalee Water/Sewer District:
City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other:
ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION
Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00
PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre
PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre
PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre
Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00
Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre-application
meeting): $2,500.00
Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00
Transportation Review Fees:
o Methodology Review: $500.00
*Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting.
o Minor Study Review: $750.00
o Major Study Review $1,500.00
$10.750
11 of 80
X12 of 80
13 of 80
EXHIBIT I
GERMAIN IMMOKALEE PUD
Project Narrative and Detail of Request
Project Background:
The Collier County Growth Management Plan currently addresses this property as the suburban
residential in the Future Land Use Element. The current land is zoned agricultural. The property
qualifies to be rezoned to commercial uses under the Commercial In-Fill Commercial Subdistrict
within the GMP. The purpose of these applications is to amend the GMP to allow a rezone which
would include automotive dealership as an allowable use and to submit a PUD rezoning request.
The site is located on the south side of Immokalee road 0.6 miles west of Interstate 75. The
subject site is approximately 8.97 acres. The site is bound on the eastern property line by
activity center #4 and on the western side by a similarly zoned agricultural piece of property.
Project Narrative and Explanation/Justification of GMPA Approval for Auto Sales
The proposed development will consist of a car dealership building facing Immokalee road and a
parking and vehicular storage building behind it. A portion of the southern side of the property
will be preserved as native vegetation and buffer the residential community that abuts the
property. This application will create a new subdistrict to allow the C-4 Motor Vehicle Dealer
use as well as the other uses and regulations consistent with the C-1 zoning use.
The Traffic Analysis prepared in conjunction with this application addressed a Motor Vehicle
Dealer on this parcel (80,000 SF maximum).
14 of 80
7/19/2019 Details
www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/recorddetail.html?sid=241760988&Map=No&FolioNum=00198040008 1/1
$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
$ 1,344,050$ 0$ 1,344,050$ 46,857$ 1,297,193$ 1,344,050
$ 1,297,193
Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary
Parcel No 00198040008 SiteAddress Site City Site Zone*Note
Name / Address HUBERT SCHERER TRUST
C/O MARY HUCKSTEP
9027 ALTURAS LN #3305
City NAPLES State FL Zip 34113
Map No.Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated3B30000100 030 13B30 30 48 26 9.34
Legal 30 48 26 E1/2 OF E1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4, LESS N 100FT R/W 9.24 AC OR1079 PG 1242
Millage Area 47 Millage Rates *CalculationsSub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other TotalUse Code 99 - ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.049 5.8222 10.8712
Latest Sales History(Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality)Date Book-Page Amount06/16/09 4466-107512/13/04 3695-337404/29/84 1079-124202/01/77 675-1483
2018 Certified Tax Roll(Subject to Change)
Land Value
(+) Improved Value
(=) Market Value
(-) 10% Cap
(=) Assessed Value
(=) School Taxable Value
(=) Taxable Value
If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll
15 of 80
16 of 80
17 of 80
18 of 80
19 of 80
20 of 80
21 of 80
22 of 80
23 of 80
24 of 80
25 of 80
26 of 80
27 of 80
28 of 80
29 of 80
30 of 80
31 of 80
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM
This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification
Letters.
Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the
date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the
applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form.
Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary.
a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in
common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the
percentage of such interest:
Name and Address % of Ownership
b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the
percentage of stock owned by each:
Name and Address % of Ownership
c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the
percentage of interest:
Name and Address % of Ownership
32 of 80
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3
d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the
general and/or limited partners:
Name and Address % of Ownership
e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation,
Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the
officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners:
Name and Address % of Ownership
Date of Contract: ___________
f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or
officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust:
Name and Address
g. Date subject property acquired _______________
Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following:
33 of 80
34 of 80
35 of 80
36 of 80
1
Germain Immokalee Road
Petitions PL20190000451 & PL20190000454
Planned Unit Development & Growth Management Plan Amendment
Neighborhood Information Meeting
First Congregational Church of Naples
6630 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34119
August 22, 2019 at 6 pm
Summary of Meeting
A table was set up at the entry door where attendees were asked to sign in (sign in sheets
attached as Exhibit 1). There was also a handout for attendees showing the permitted uses of the
property (Exhibit 2).
The meeting was called to order at approximately 6 pm by Richard Yovanovich, who
introduced himself as the attorney for the project. He also introduced others on the team: John
Garbo, representing the purchaser; Tom Barber, the Professional Planner; and Dominick Amico,
Professional Engineer. He suggested that any questions specific to water management could be
answered by Dom Amico; questions regarding operational safeguards that will be taken could be
answered by Tom Barber.
Mr. Yovanovich then explained how the Collier County Land Development Code requires
any project going through the County to have a Neighborhood Information Meeting where
surrounding neighbors (500 ft) of the project are mailed a notice and it’s published in the
newspaper. The purpose of the NIM is explain the project and to allow those neighbors to ask
questions, give feedback, and adjustments made as appropriate.
Mr. Yovanovich introduced the two representatives from Collier County: Sue Faulkner,
the Planner who is reviewing the Growth Management Plan Amendment; and Tim Finn, the
Planner who is reviewing the PUD Rezone Petition.
Mr. Yovanovich provided a brief overview of how the NIM would be handled: brief
overview and then open it up to questions. He explained that it has to be recorded, so asked people
not to talk over each other. He said that the team would identify themselves when they speak for
the record. He said the public could identify themselves if they wanted to, but it is not a
requirement.
Mr. Yovanovich explained there are two petitions going through this process. One is a
small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. The property is less than 10 acres (referred to the
yellow shaded parcel in Exhibit 3 attached hereto). He then referred to Exhibit 4 while explaining
that the parcel is immediately adjacent to what Collier County calls Activity Centers, which are
37 of 80
2
generally located at the major intersections of roads, this one being at the I-75 interchange and
Immokalee Road. Collier County designated the four quadrants around that interchange as activity
centers. That means that’s where the County wants the more intense commercial development and
more intense residential development to go. This parcel is immediately adjacent to the activity
center. Mr. Yovanovich then generally explained the types of uses (office and residential) that
would be available for this parcel under the existing comprehensive plan. Our project is asking
for a small-scale comprehensive plan to allow for the office uses that are currently allowed and
also to allow for a luxury automobile dealership to go on the site (details for rezone for this would
be discussed). He stated that this is Sue Faulkner’s petition, so comments would go to her for this
petition.
The second petition is to rezone the property to the commercial planned unit development
zoning district. In the commercial planned unit development district, we identify the uses we want
to put on the property, the development standards and identify the intensity of what’s going to go
on that property. Mr. Yovanovich referred to the Master Plan (Exhibit 5) and said that we’re
asking for an automobile dealership and the typical accessory uses that go with an automobile
dealership. He stated that it will be a luxury automobile dealership and that Co llier County is
unique in their road impact fee ordinance. Collier County has a different calculation for “regular
cars” and “luxury cars” because luxury car dealerships attract less people to the property and it’s
a lower intensity use than a normal car dealership. He said most people know what they want, they
come and look at it, and they buy it. There’s not a lot of in and out and just walking around doing
“window shopping.” So, we’re asking for a luxury automobile dealership on this property which
would include service, very limited used cars or trade-ins. The use on this property would be
luxury automobile dealership.
Mr. Yovanovich then referred to Exhibit 6 (Illustrative Site Plan with Cross Sections) and
showed where the preserve area will be on the south end of the property and explained where the
sales showroom, service and indoor parking will be on top of the service area. It was explained
there will be a Type B Buffer along three sides and a Type D Buffer along the road at the front of
the property (typical buffers when you’re adjacent to commercial properties). The preserve will
serve as the buffer to the south, which is wider than 25 feet. The County requires that lighting be
shielded so that it doesn’t spill off the property, which is a concern for adjacent residential
properties. This will be taken care of in the required development standards. We’re not asking for
any deviations from the Collier County Land Development Code. We’re focusing our real uses –
the perimeter to the north, adjacent to the already existing commercial uses and referred to the
parcels surrounding this parcel (Walmart, the undeveloped parcel on the other side, etc.).
Mr. Yovanovich advised that Tim Finn is in charge of the rezone petition and referred the
public to him for further questions. He also referred to Tom Barber and Dom Amico and said they
will provide their contact information for further questions and information. Mr. Yovanovich
38 of 80
3
stated that the purpose of this meeting is to take the public through this process. Germain
Automotive is the purchaser of the project, so the public should be aware of their quality of
dealerships. He referred to the elevation rendering (Exhibit 7) of what we think the dealership
might look like and said it will be architecturally and aesthetically pleasing from Immokalee Road.
Other operational standards: required to keep the doors to service closed other than to go in and
out. He assured that there are safeguards in place to make sure they won’t be a noisy neighbor.
He mentioned that he has the traffic impact statement with him should anyone have any questions
and would like to ask him while they’re there. Mr. Yovanovich ended the overview of the project
and opened it up to questions from the public.
Q: [Unidentified person] What are the hours of the business?
A: [Tom Barber] Sales - Monday through Saturday, 8 am to 9 pm; Service - Monday through
Saturday, 7 am to 6 pm; Sales and Service – Sunday, 10 am to 6 pm
Q: [John Cobb, owner in ______ Palms to the west of the parcel] Will there be any late-night
deliveries? Any tractor trailers coming in and delivering cars late a night?
A: [Dominick Amico, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage] It doesn’t currently happen at any of their
dealerships. There won’t be anyone there to receive the cars.
A: [Rich Yovanovich] Referred to Exhibit 3 and told Mr. Cobb that the lot adjacent to where
he lives is not part of this acquisition.
Q: [Unidentified person] Are you asking for a variance already or have you already been
approved for what you want to build?
A: [Yovanovich] No, we have not been approved. We’re going through the process now to
get the permission to ask for the dealership and then to rezone the property for the
dealership. This is part of the approval process.
Q: [Unidentified person] I’m concerned about the lighting. If you get approved on yours, the
next lot that is not owned yet, or has not been sold yet, what’s to prevent them from putting
up another dealership like yours with even more lights? That’s what we’re concerned with.
A: [Yovanovich] The process that will have to occur will be the same process that we’re going
through now. They would have to go through a public hearing process and ask the Board
of County Commissioners to change the comprehensive plan and also get a PUD Rezone.
The way you get through this process with Collier County is both petitions require a super
majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners – there are five Commissioners, so
39 of 80
4
we have to get four of the five Commissioners to support our petition. I’ve been doing this
for a while; my – no guarantee, but if I was a betting man - if this becomes a car dealership,
I don’t like the chances of this one also getting that same approval from the County
Commission. If I were handicapping it, I don’t think I’d win. I don’t think there’s much
of a risk of this being a domino effect.
Q: [Unidentified person] You don’t think you’re going to disturb our peaceful quality of life
for coming home from work and just want to relax and not hear the commotion , loud
speakers, lights in the sky….
A: [Yovanovich] No, the answer to your question is no.
A: [Amico] I’ve done all of Germain’s modern dealerships: BMW, Lincoln, Lexus, Toyota,
Honda, and they don’t even have a PA system anymore. Everybody carries these [holding
up a cell phone]. They don’t broadcast through the parking lot. That will be a restriction
on our PUD – no amplified sound outside.
A. [Yovanovich] One of our operational prohibitions in the PUD is no amplified sound. There
will not be a PA system.
Q: [Unidentified person] We live across the street in Carlton Lakes (directly in front of your
building). Our main concern is traffic issues. Even coming here today, it seemed like
December traffic. There’s just so much traffic. I can understand when you put your Honda
establishment at Pine Ridge and Livingston; that’s a major intersection with multiple four-
lane roads and you can go in and out. This thing is congested. Plus, we have the Seed to
Table in November which is going in over there which is touted as the Disneyland of this
area with multiple restaurants and they’re hoping for a thousand people coming. It’s going
to create major traffic jams, especially when the snowbirds come, and I know you talked
about somebody did a study with it. I know that just from the Carlton Lakes Association
talking to the Seed to Table people and Collier County, there were problems with all of the
traffic that’s going to be coming in and out, especially going into our facility/place. Just
on Immokalee Road and just on Livingston, I can’t believe it’s going to be good.
A: [Amico] A little information. When we did the rezone for Honda, what I learned was that
the average car buyer makes one trip to the dealership. He takes seven or eight trips to the
dealership on the Internet. The Internet experience with regard to buying cars is like all
there is anymore. You don’t have to take my word for it. Just go to a dealership on the
web, and the first thing that pops up is an Internet salesman. As far as the other uses that
could go here, the traffic is going to be small ….
40 of 80
5
Q: [Unidentified person] (Interrupted asking about doing a traffic study)
A: [Yovanovich] Let me explain about a traffic study…
Q: [Unidentified person] No, I mean that doesn’t make any difference because it’s going to
change. It’s going to change in November…
A: [Yovanovich] Well the traffic studies that we do, we are required to use – the County does
trip counts every year on all their roads and they develop what’s called an AUIR (I forget
what that stands for) for all of its infrastructure including roads, so they do trip counts
during the peak season. So, we’re required to use the peak season trip count in our traffic
study and then we use what’s called an ITE manual that studies how many people come
and go from our dealerships during the peak, and we have to put those peak hours trips
from the ITE manual onto the County’s counted peak hour peak season trips. So, our traffic
study is based upon the peak hour, peak season. We don’t go out in the dead of summer
and count trips which that would be much lower than you would find during peak season
and do our traffic study that way. We’re required to use peak hour peak season trip
generation when we’re doing our traffic study. That’s what we’ve done. County staff
reviews the trip analysis and they either confirm we did it correctly or they say we didn’t
do it correctly. They will then look at those trips and look at what is the adopted level of
service or capacity on Immokalee Road, and if we create a failure on Immokalee Road
because we’re putting too many trips on Immokalee Road during peak season peak hour,
we will not get a permit. So, we go through a very detailed review/traffic analysis in peak
season peak hour trip generation.
Q: [Unidentified person] I live in Livingston Lakes. At the end of your buffer zone is Butler
Lake Drive. On here [referring to mailed notice], you have it as “Buffer” “B-u-f-f-e-r” and
I just thought if we are ever concerned about it, it’s not the right name on the map. It says
“Buffer.”
A: [Yovanovich] It says “Butler Lake Drive” here (refereing to mailed notice of NIM). I
apologize if we misspelled it on another exhibit. This is the preserve, you don’t ever have
to worry about anything being developed in the preserve.
Q: [Unidentified person] Could I get clarification regarding the unloading of cars. You said
you won’t have any?
A: [Unidentified person] Not during outside of hours
A: [Amico] Not during closed hours.
41 of 80
6
A: [Yovanovich] The deliveries will be during the typical business hours. I think the question
was will we have any late-night deliveries, and the answer is no. There are deliveries that
will happen…
Q: [Unidentified person] The second question is will there be any curb cuts in the median to
get to the dealership?
A: [Yovanovich] Everything is a right-in, right-out off Immokalee Road – no curb cuts. There
will be no directional left to get in; there will be no way to go west out of this site. There
will just be right-in, right-out.
Q: [Unidentified person] You guys don’t realize how horrible the traffic is.
A: [Yovanovich] Yeah, I think we do. We all live here. [inaudible…multiple people talking
at once] This dealership will generate less traffic than if someone were to come in and do
a multi-family project on that site.
Q: [Unidentified person] How will that affect our value of our homes?
A: [Yovanovich] I don’t think it will have an impact …
Q: [Unidentified person] [inaudible…] was a study… Putting your dealership, how does that
directly affect our home values right next to you?
A: [Yovanovich] I can tell you that living in Collier County, you will see very well priced
homes next to car dealerships.
Q: [Unidentified person] Can you give me an example?
A: [Yovanovich] I think the BMW dealership is right behind Collier’s Reserve.
Q: [Unidentified person] That’s across the street?
A: [Yovanovich] No that’s behind it. You have the shopping center in which the dealership
is in immediately adjacent to Collier’s Reserve. You’ll see a lot of high-end real estate in
Collier County immediately adjacent to commercial development without an impact on the
value of property.
Q: [Unidentified person] Are there buffers, trees, lakes …
42 of 80
7
A: [Yovanovich] Absolutely. We’ll be doing all the same thing. We’ll have buffers…
Q: [Unidentified person] All the way around?
A: [Yovanovich] Yes, sir. [points to the site plan exhibit and indicates where the buffers will
be located and the preserve]. We’ll have appropriate buffers, and remember, you’re not
next to the dealership; you’ll have this lot right here.
Q: [Unidentified person] I just want to ask; you talk about the traffic study and everything.
Everything is going to be impacted completely differently in this area when Oaks Farm
opens. It’s going to be a massive change for all of us because of the traffic from it. Is this
survey going to be done, as far as the traffic survey, is it [inaudible] than last year, or is it
going to be done during the peak of season after it opens?
A: [Yovanovich] The way the County works is you grow the traffic that exists on the road
[…..inaudible because of chairs moving around] that you have to grow annually [inaudible]
and project out how much more traffic is going to be on that road when you do your study.
So, that’s been factored in.
Q: [Unidentified person] Which luxury car is it?
A: [Yovanovich] I’m not at liberty to tell you the dealership at this time, but it will be a luxury
dealership.
Q: [Unidentified person] Their luxuries are BMW, Lexus, and what was the other one?
A: [Yovanovich] There are a lot of luxury cars out there, so there are a bunch of opportunities.
Q: [Unidentified person] I’m a resident of Livingston Lakes. I’m just wondering what is going
to be the environmental impact of taking out all of those trees and putting all that asphalt?
I’m concerned about all of the animals that live there, like the bears. [inaudible – multiple
people talking]
A: [Yovanovich] Another document that we’re required to do – and all of this is on the Collier
County website – we’re required to do an environmental impact statement. Passarella &
Associates is the ecologist, or the firm who did the environmental. They walked the site,
they looked for listed species, they looked for wetlands, they looked for listed plants. They
go through that process and identify if there’s any impact statement to those listed species
and then we deal with Collier County, one regulatory [inaudible] that looks at that. Dom
43 of 80
8
gets to deal with South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corps of
Engineers, so that’s the State and Federal agencies that we’re looking at. So, there’s
multiple layers of review to determine what impact there will be to bugs and bunnies and
critters.
Q: [Unidentified person] Okay, and where’s that information located?
A: [Yovanovich] It’s on the County website. I don’t have a copy of that report with me, but
it’s a detailed analysis …
Q: [Unidentified person] I just feel like that’s a lot of green space that is going to be turned
into asphalt.
A: [Yovanovich] And we are going to need to require retention of the green space that’s in the
Collier County Land Development Code.
Q: [Unidentified person] Isn’t that where the homeless camp is? On that property?
A: [Yovanovich] I drive by it, but …. [interrupted by speaker] [multiple speaking/discussion]
Q: [Unidentified person] I just want to know if there’s going to be lit signage in front of the
building.
A: [Amico] I’m trying to think of the luxury dealers we have now: BMW does not, Lexus
does not, Lincoln does not. I can’t tell you yes or no for sure, but …
Q: [Unidentified person] Because right now we have the berm, and we have trees and stuff
like that, but we see the trees that you’re going to take out.
A: [Amico] If there is a lit sign, and I’m not saying there’s going to be, it’s going to orient
towards Immokalee Road not towards Livingston Lakes.
[inaudible discussion amongst public]
Q: [Unidentified person] Repeat the question.
A: [Yovanovich] The question was, “Are there going to be any lit signs identifying the
dealership,” and Dom basically said the dealerships that they have right now don’t have lit
signs. That doesn’t mean there won’t be one, but there are regulations in the County sign
code that require that and deals with that as well, and we’re not asking for any deviation
44 of 80
9
from that. But, if other competition is an indicator, lit signs is not a priority for luxury car
dealerships.
Q: [Unidentified person] Three quickies: rooftop storage of cars.
A: [Yovanovich] [Referring to one of the site plans and the placement of the showroom and
service areas].
Q: [Unidentified person] The proper rendition shows a parapet on the front of the building that
blocks the majority of the cars. Will there be a similar parapet protecting the people that
are behind from seeing those cars on the second level?
Q: [Unidentified person] [inaudible] Because from there, I walk Livingston Lakes. And there
I can see the extra storage space and stuff, so I’m just concerned too that vegetation and
preserve space that you have there, it’s not going to be enough kind of to block everything
from over there. From our side our community, I can see the other buildings if I walk to
the far end across the outer perimeter. I just don’t feel like that’s enough space…
A: [Amico] There are concept plans. That detail really hasn’t been worked out yet, as far as
the parapet wall in the back.
Q: [Unidentified person] Is there a reason why you’d have something different in the back
than you’d have in the front for aesthetics?
A: [Amico] The front ones are probably there to hide the air conditioning units. They’re
required to do that when you have your air conditioning units on the roof. And, to make a
more attractive storefront.
A: [Yovanovich] We understand that the comment is, I’m assuming you would like to see if
we can extend the parapet up so you don’t see cars on the top of the second floor. We’ll
obviously bring that to – John Garbo’s heard it, so we’ll bring that back to our client and
we’ll talk about that …
Q: [Unidentified person] Those cars will be 16’ above grade, thereby more visible from the
neighboring area residential than anything else. My other question is to the Planner, and
I’m sorry, at the introduction I may have been a little bit confused. One of you is working
on the zoning, which is the larger request. Is that you, Tim?
A: [Yovanovich] Yes, that’s Tim.
45 of 80
10
Q: [Unidentified person] Can you explain to us people that may not know your business, you
approve based on the highest and best use of the real estate, correct? That’s not a trick
question.
[laughter]
A: [Yovanovich] I can tell you in my experience going through the process that that’s not
correct.
A: [Sue Faulkner] Tim and I are not the approvers of the project. We can recommend to the
elected officials that we think it might be something they would want to approve, but the
only people in the entire County that can approve a project are your elected officials and
the Board of County Commissioners.
Q: [Unidentified person] Thank you, but my understanding of what you just said is you are
basically employees of the city or whatever …
A: [Faulkner] County…
Q: [Unidentified person] that would go back. In light of that, if in fact 40 or 50 homeowners
were against this concept, in the ones that you’ve seen being County employees, how often
do you see something like this not go through, and, if so, why? And what do the
homeowners do in that case?
A: [Faulkner] I’ve seen both approvals and disapprovals by public comments being made.
You never can tell exactly what is going to influence the Commissioners’ vote and how
they will vote. We never try to second guess that. But we can look at what we are basing
our recommendations on, which is our experience plus what we work with. In my case, I
work with the growth management plan amendments with that growth management plan
in front of me. And, I’m looking for things that aren’t consistent that would not make sense
with that document. In Tim’s case, you can speak for yourself…
A: [Tim Finn] Yeah, I look at all the codes and whatever documentation I can verify – what
our codes do allow and what they don’t allow and I make a professional judgment on
whether or not to recommend approval or approval with conditions or I reject it.
[inaudible – talking over each other]
Q: [Unidentified person] In light of your question about 40 or 50 homeowners, can this be re-
held in November when more people …
46 of 80
11
A: [Faulkner] It’s not necessary because the two meetings that are in front of the two different
governing bodies. The first is the Planning Commission and those are folks that that is
their whole job to review development plans coming in and make recommendations again
to the Board of County Commissioners. That body meets all of the time, but this particular
meeting is unlikely to take place prior to the seasonal people being back, and it is a public
hearing. So, therefore, you’re able to come and speak at that meeting and talk directly to
the Commissioners of the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners –
or both.
Q: [Unidentified person] When is that?
A: [Faulkner] We don’t have a schedule for this particular…
A: [Yovanovich] If I’m going to project out, we’re already basically into September. I have
to go to the Planning Commission first. I don’t even have …. I have to respond to
comments from staff. My guess is that it will be in the January to March timeframe that
we’re in front of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. So,
it will be during the season. If I’m projecting out, and I’m pretty good at knowing ….
A: [Faulkner] And I think that’s what I think Tim and I would guess as well based on where
we are right now today. And we have two public hearings with those meetings, so there’s
plenty of opportunity to speak again and be heard by the people who are going to make
those recommendations final and recommend them to the Board of County Commissioners
who will make the decision.
Q: [Unidentified person] Does Germain actually own the property today?
A: [Yovanovich] They have it under contract.
Q: [Unidentified person] Are there other suitable sites in Collier County that they’re pursuing
for this luxury automobile dealership than just this site?
A: [Yovanovich] My understanding is right now that this is the site. There’s not a lot of
opportunities in Collier County that fit the description and make sense for a luxury
dealership.
Q: [Unidentified person] In line with his question, is it pending or is it complete?
A: [Yovanovich] I told you it’s under contract; it hasn’t been closed yet.
47 of 80
12
Mr. Yovanovich asked if there were any other questions. When no one spoke, he thanked
everyone for their time. He announced that if you received a notice about this meeting, you’ll get
a notice about the Planning Commission meeting. There will also be signs up along Immokalee
Road letting you know when the Planning Commission hearing is and the Board of County
Commissioners meeting is. There will also be an ad in the newspaper.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:35 pm.
This meeting was audio recorded by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage; a copy of which has been
provided to the County. The meeting summary was also prepared by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage.
48 of 80
EXHIBIT 1
49 of 80
50 of 80
Petitions PL20190000451 & PL20190000454
Planned Unit Development & Growth Management Plan Amendment
Parcel No. 00198040008
Permitted Uses
The Germain Immokalee CPUD shall be developed as a commercial use project, which will
include a Luxury automotive sales facility with associated repair services, limited to 30,000 SF
Gross Floor Area (GFA).
A. Principal Uses:
1. Luxury Motor vehicle dealers (new and used); SIC Code Group 5511
2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of
permitted principal uses, as determined by Hearing Examiner or the Board of
Zoning Appeals (BZA) by the process outlined in the LDC.
B. Accessory Uses:
1. Motor Vehicle Dealers, Used Only (Group 5521)
2. Automotive Exhaust System Repair Shops (Group 7533)
3. Tire Repair Shops, not including Tire retreading (Group 7534)
4. Automotive Glass Replacement Shops (Group 7536)
5. Automotive Transmission Repair Shops (Group 7537)
6. General Automotive Repair Shops (Group 7538)
7. Automotive Repair Shops, Not Elsewhere Classified (Group 7539)
8. Automotive Parking for vehicular storage for new and used sales only (Group 7521)
9. Car wash, subject to the provisions of LDC Section 5.05.11.
10. Uses and Structures that are accessory and incidental to an automotive sales facility.
11. Display of new and used automobiles for sale, provided it does not adversely affect
pedestrian or vehicular traffic or public health. Vehicle display is prohibited within
any required landscape buffer, and allowed within front, side and rear yard setbacks
EXHIBIT 2
51 of 80
EXHIBIT 3
52 of 80
EXHIBIT 4
53 of 80
EXHIBIT 5
54 of 80
EXHIBIT 6
55 of 80
EXHIBIT 7
56 of 80
Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 15
57 of 80
58 of 80
59 of 80
Mr. Dominick Amico
March 8, 2018
Page 2
• The Project site contains potential habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species
including Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus
niger avicennia), and Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus).
• Specific surveys may be required to refute use of the site by red-cockaded woodpecker, Big
Cypress fox squirrel, and Florida bonneted bat.
• Potential environmental permitting and compensatory mitigation costs include items listed in
the following table.
Activity Description Opinion of
Probable Cost1
Environmental
Permitting and
Consulting
Environmental consulting costs in support of all permit
entitlements including County PUD, SFWMD ERP, and
Corps permit. Includes consultation with the USFWS
and species-specific surveys for bonneted bat and red-
cockaded woodpecker.
$75,000.00±
Wetland
Mitigation
Bank
5 UMAM for direct and off-site secondary wetland
impacts at $90,000 per credit $450,000.00±
Total $525,000.00±
1These findings are based on the Project’s theoretical impacts to all uplands and wetlands. Assumes no cost for
on-site mitigation including exotic removal, monitoring, reporting, and perpetual maintenance. Assumes
compensatory mitigation for threatened and endangered species will be covered by wetland mitigation bank
purchase.
ERP – Environmental Resource Permit
PUD – Planned Unit Development
SFWMD – South Florida Water Management District
USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UMAM – Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology
Vegetation Communities
Vegetation mapping for the property was conducted using November 2016 rectified color aerials.
Groundtruthing of the vegetative communities was conducted on February 28, 2018 utilizing the
Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Level IV.1 Level IV
FLUCFCS was utilized to denote hydrological conditions and disturbances. To identify levels of
exotic infestation (i.e., melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinthifolius)), “E” codes were used. AutoCAD Map 3D 2017 software was then used to
1Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure
No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition.
60 of 80
Mr. Dominick Amico
March 8, 2018
Page 3
determine the acreage of each mapping area, produce summaries, and generate the FLUCFCS
map for the Project site (Exhibit 2).
A brief description of the vegetation communities identified within each FLUCFCS Code
follows:
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1)
The upland habitat contains a canopy of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), earleaf acacia (Acacia
auriculiformis), melaleuca, dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). The
sub-canopy contains cabbage palm, Brazilian pepper, earleaf acacia, and cocoplum
(Chrysobalanus icaco). The ground cover consists of cabbage palm, Brazilian pepper, myrsine
(Myrsine cubana), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), and muscadine grape
(Vitus rotundifolia).
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E2)
The upland habitat has the same vegetation composition as FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1, but with a
higher percentage cover of exotics.
Melaleuca, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 4241)
This potential wetland habitat contains a canopy stratum of melaleuca, laurel oak (Quercus
laurifolia), slash pine, and earleaf acacia. The sub-canopy contains cabbage palm and Brazilian
pepper. The ground cover consists of swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), sawgrass, and
myrsine.
Cypress, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E2)
This potential wetland habitat contains a canopy of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), earleaf
acacia, and melaleuca. The sub-canopy contains cabbage palm. The ground cover consists of
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and swamp fern.
Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E2)
This potential wetland habitat contains a canopy of slash pine, melaleuca, and cabbage palm.
The sub-canopy consists of dahoon holly and cabbage palm. The ground cover consists of
sawgrass, gulfdune paspalum (Paspalum monostachyum), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia), and
rosy camphorweed (Pluchea baccharis).
Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E3)
The potential wetland habitat has the same vegetation composition as FLUCFCS Code 6259 E2,
but with a higher percentage cover of exotics.
Road (FLUCFCS Code 814)
Immokalee Road, including cleared and filled portions of the right-of-way, exists on the north
side of the Project.
61 of 80
Mr. Dominick Amico
March 8, 2018
Page 4
Jurisdictional Wetlands
To assess the current extent of wetlands on the Project, the site was reviewed for both state and
federal jurisdiction using the Florida Department of State “Delineation of the Landward Extent
of Wetlands and Surface Waters”2 and the Corps “Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0).”3
Based on the preliminary site review, approximately 5.85 acres or 63 percent of the parcel may
be considered SFWMD and Corps jurisdictional wetlands (Exhibit 2). The potential wetland area
consists of Melaleuca, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 4241); Cypress, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics)
(FLUCFCS Code 6219 E2); and Hydric Pine, Disturbed (25-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Codes
6259 E2 and E3). A large area of wetlands was observed to extend off-site to the west. A small
amount of wetlands also extends off-site into a native preserve area located on the southeast side
of the Project
The property does not contain any areas that would likely be claimed as “other surface waters”
(OSWs) by the SFWMD. A determination with the regulatory agencies to verify the current
status of wetland jurisdiction was not within the scope of this assessment. Based on review of
SFWMD permit files, lands to the east were previously identified to contain jurisdictional
wetlands that bordered the Project (Exhibit 3).
Assertion of wetland jurisdiction by the Corps is subject to the Corps Jurisdictional
Determination Form Instructional Guidebook 4 (Guidebook) and supplementary guidance from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps titled Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
Following the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United
States 5 (Guidance). Please note that the Corps released a revised guidance in draft form in April
2011, but the revised guidance has not been finalized to date.
The Guidebook and supplementary Guidance states that the Corps will assert jurisdiction over
the following categories of water bodies:
– Traditional navigable waters;
– Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters;
– Non-navigable, “relatively permanent waters” (i.e., have continuous flow at least
seasonally) tributaries of traditional navigable waters; and
– Wetlands that directly abut non-navigable, relatively permanent tributaries.
2Florida Department of State. 2010. Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters. Chapters
62-340, F.A.C.
3U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-10-20.
4U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook.
5U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
Following The U.S. Supreme Court Decision In Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States.
62 of 80
Mr. Dominick Amico
March 8, 2018
Page 5
The Cocohatchee Canal located on the north side of the Project is considered jurisdictional by
the Corps and meets the current definition of a Relatively Permanent Water (RPW) that is a
tributary of traditional navigable waters. There was no evidence of either culverts or a direct
surface water connection between wetlands identified on the Project and the Cocohatchee Canal.
Since the Corps will have to determine a “significant nexus” to the Cocohatchee Canal or other
tributaries to traditional navigable waters, it is unclear whether the existing wetlands on the
property will be considered within the Corps’ jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of wetlands by the Corps
will need to be determined by submission of an application to the Corps.
Based on review of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation
Service) Soils Survey for Collier County 6 and the Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook,7 the subject
property is mapped as containing Unit 11 – Hallandale fine sand, a non-hydric soil; hydric soil
types identified as Unit 14 – Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum; and Unit 21 – Boca fine
sand (Exhibit 4). Areas mapped as hydric soil units correspond with the observed location of
wetland vegetation communities.
Wetlands Permitting
An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) will be required for SFWMD wetland impacts and a
federal Dredge and Fill Permit may be required for Corps wetland impacts. The need for a Corps
permit is dependent on a jurisdictional determination. The applicant will need to demonstrate to
both the state and federal agencies that wetland impacts were first avoided as much as possible,
and then minimized where feasible. The remaining unavoidable wetland impacts will require
mitigation. The agencies will also consider secondary and cumulative impacts to wetlands as a
result of the Project.
Secondary impacts include: violations of water quality standards, adverse impacts to wetland
functions, impacts to uplands utilized for nesting or denning by wetland-dependent listed animal
species, impacts to historical and archaeological resources, and additional phases or activities
closely linked to the proposed system. Water quality standards may be addressed in the design of
the surface water management system. Adverse impacts to wetland functions may be addressed
through preservation of historic wetland flow-ways and structural or upland buffers adjacent to
the preserved wetlands. Impacts to uplands utilized by wetland-dependent listed species may be
addressed through compliance with listed species guidelines established by the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
or through appropriate mitigation measures.
In addition to secondary impacts, impacts to wetlands on the property must not cause
unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and OSWs within the same drainage basin as
the regulated activity for which a permit is sought. If wetland impacts are proposed, a cumulative
6Soils Conservation Service. 1998. Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida.
7Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists. 1995. (Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Second Edition).
Victor W. Carlisle Ed.
63 of 80
Mr. Dominick Amico
March 8, 2018
Page 6
impact analysis may be required as part of the SFWMD permit. Cumulative impacts will be
reviewed based on impacts to water quality and functions of wetlands. Unacceptable cumulative
impacts may be avoided if the Project results in minimal or no wetland impacts and if mitigation
fully offsets all direct and secondary wetland impacts within the Project boundary or elsewhere
within the drainage basin.
The SFWMD will review the Project’s effects on historic basin and floodplain storage.
Provisions must be made to replace or mitigate the loss of basin storage provided by the Project
site. Basin storage issues should be reviewed with a professional engineer experienced with
water management system design and construction criteria.
The SFWMD will require that a Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM)
analysis be conducted for the wetland impacts and mitigation areas, and the Corps will require
that a UMAM or Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) analysis be conducted for the
wetland impacts and mitigation areas. Through the UMAM and the WRAP analyses, it will need
to be demonstrated that the loss in wetland functions due to the proposed impacts will be offset
by a similar increase in wetland functions resulting from the proposed mitigation.
Depending on the development size and location, some SFWMD wetland mitigation credit could
be generated by granting a conservation easement over Project lands and agreeing to implement
a perpetual maintenance plan to control exotic and nuisance plants. If a Corps permit is required,
it is unlikely the permittee will be able to provide any wetland mitigation on Project lands. Corps
mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will most likely require a credit purchase at a
regional wetland mitigation bank. Federal wetland mitigation credits at a regional mitigation
bank are currently costing up to $90,000 per credit. Wetland credit pricing is subject to supply
and demand and may have periodic limited availability. A rough estimation of mitigation need is
one credit per one and one-half to two acres of permitted wetland impact. A wetland functional
assessment of an assumed permittable impact would be required to determine Project specific
wetland credit value.
The “Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook Volume I”8 identifies the rivulus
(Rivulus marmoratus), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), American crocodile
(Crocodylus acutus), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), tri-
colored heron (Egretta tricolor), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), snowy egret (Egretta
thula), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja), wood stork, bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Big Cypress fox squirrel, and Florida bonneted bat as wetland-
dependent listed wildlife species. Potential impacts to these species as a result of the Project will
need to be addressed through the SFWMD permitting process. Through protection of nesting
sites and preservation and management of forested wetlands, it may be demonstrated that the
Project will not adversely affect wetland-dependent listed wildlife species.
8Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Northwest Florida, Suwanee River, St. Johns River,
Southwest Florida, and South Florida Water Management Districts. 2013. Environmental Resource Permit
Applicant’s Handbook Volume I (General and Environmental); 143 pp.
64 of 80
Mr. Dominick Amico
March 8, 2018
Page 7
Listed Species
A cursory listed species survey was conducted on the property to determine whether the Project
site is being utilized by wildlife species listed by the USFWS and/or the FWCC as threatened,
endangered, or species of special concern. No listed wildlife species were observed on the
Project site during the February 28, 2018 assessment. A review of FWCC documented
occurrences of listed species was also conducted. According to the FWCC, historic records of
red-cockaded woodpeckers have been reported within 0.5 mile of the Project site (Exhibit 5).
Specific surveys for red-cockaded woodpeckers may be required if a Corps permit is required for
the Project.
The Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies 9 was referenced for the location
of breeding colonies of both listed and non-listed wading birds including, but not limited to, the
snowy egret, roseate spoonbill, little blue heron, wood stork, and tri-colored heron. There was no
reference to breeding rookeries located on or adjacent to the property. The FWCC database for
wading bird rookeries shows no rookeries within two miles of the property.
The USFWS Draft Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species 10 for the wood
stork recognizes a 30 kilometer (18.6 mile) zone surrounding a colony boundary as a core
foraging area (CFA). According to the FWCC data, one wood stork colony exists within 30
kilometers of the site and therefore, the Project site is within a CFA (Exhibit 6). The property
provides marginal habitat that may be used for foraging by wood storks during the wet season. If
future development of wetlands is proposed, mitigation may be required to offset impacts to
wood stork foraging habitat. On-site wetland habitat preservation and wetland mitigation credit
purchase at a regional mitigation bank will provide wood stork foraging habitat value that can be
used to help compensate for required wood stork foraging habitat.
The Project includes suitable habitat for the Eastern indigo snake. No Eastern indigo snakes were
observed during the assessment in the Project area. Eastern indigo snakes are often closely
associated with gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) and gopher tortoise burrows. No gopher
tortoises or gopher tortoise burrows were observed within the Project area during the assessment.
Suitable foraging and nesting habitat for the Big Cypress fox squirrel is found within the Project
area. No Big Cypress fox squirrels were observed during the assessment of the Project area. The
Big Cypress fox squirrel is listed as State-Designated Threatened by the FWCC.
The Project area contains habitat that may contain regulated plants as defined by the Collier
County Land Development Code (LDC) and Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Chapter 5B-
40. Potential regulated plants include butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) and wild pine
9Runde, D.E. et al. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies. Update 1986-1989. Division
of Wildlife, Nongame Wildlife Section, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Tallahassee, FL.
10U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Draft Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species Wood
Storks. South Florida Ecological Services Office.
65 of 80
Mr. Dominick Amico
March 8, 2018
Page 8
(Tillandsia sp.). Regulated wild pine observed in the Project area included stiff-leaved wild pine
(T. fasciculata). Plants regulated by the Collier County LDC may be required to be relocated into
designated on-site preserves as a condition of development approval.
Listed Species Permitting
The Imperiled Species Management section in the Division of Habitat and Species Conservation
of the FWCC may consult with the state agency responsible for issuing state water quality
certification for the the Project, typically the SFWMD. The state listed species that may be
consulted on by the FWCC include Eastern indigo snake, gopher tortoise, Florida bonneted bat,
and Big Cypress fox squirrel. Consultation between the FWCC and the SFWMD will run
concurrently with the permit processing and typically concludes with a requirement for pre-
construction surveys to document the presence or absence of nest sites. If active nest sites are
identified, then agency guidelines will need to be followed.
Agency permit review for listed species will center on species that are federally listed in addition
to being state listed. If federal wetland jurisdiction is established, the Corps will be the lead
federal agency in the permitting process. The Corps will consult with the USFWS on threatened
and endangered species. The USFWS consultation may include the threatened Eastern indigo
snake, threatened wood stork, threatened red-cockaded woodpecker, and endangered Florida
bonneted bat if they will be affected by the actions of the Project.
The USFWS may require the construction activity to adhere to the Standard Protection Measures
for the Eastern indigo snake. The Standard Protection Measures typically require the distribution
of informational posters and pamphlets advising construction personnel to avoid any direct
contact with Eastern indigo snakes.
Mitigation provided to offset wetland impacts will provide some foraging habitat for wood
storks. A foraging habitat analysis is required to determine if wetland compensation will be
sufficient to compensate for the loss of wood stork foraging habitat. The purchase of additional
wetland mitigation bank credits can be used to offset any remaining foraging deficit. If
mitigation is required, the USFWS will require type-for-type wetland compensation be provided.
Surveys may be required to document the presence/absence of the red-cockaded woodpecker,
Florida bonneted bat, and Big Cypress fox squirrel. Project construction may be conditioned with
protective measures to avoid adverse risk to these species. Protective measures may include
implementation of pre-construction surveys and buffers for active nest sites.
Summary
A review of current wetland conditions identified approximately 5.85 acres or approximately 63
percent of the Project area as potential SFWMD and Corps jurisdictional wetlands.
66 of 80
67 of 80
EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
68 of 80
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATEOOAAKKMMOONNTTPPKKWWYYIIMMPPEERRIIAALLGGOOLLFFCCOOUURRSSEEBBLLVVDDPPRRIINNCCEESSSSCCTTVVEERRDDEEWWAAYYCCIITTRRUUSSLLAAKKEEDDRRMM
AA
RR
SSAALL
AAWW AA YY IISSLLAANNDDWWAALLKKCCII
RR
TTUUPPEELL
OORRDD
SSTTRRAADDAA
PP
LLIIBBIISSWWAAYYSSUUMMMMEERRPPLL
VVIIKKIINNGG WWAAYY
RRIIDDGGEEDDRRLLEEAARRNNIINNGGLLNN
ERIE DRERIE DR
EE NN CCOORREE WWAAYY
GGRROOVVEESSRRDD
WICKLIFFE DRWICKLIFFE DR
CCOO RRSSOOMMEEDDIITTEERRRRAA CCIIRRKIRTLAND DRKIRTLAND DR
ENTRADA AVEENTRADA AVE
OO LL DD GG RROOVVEE SSRRDDPPAALLMMRRIIVVEERRBBLLVVDD
GGOORRDDOONNI
I
AARR
DDGGRREEEENNTTRREEEEDDRRMMYY
RR
TT
LL
EERRDDMMIILL LL PP OO NNDDCC
IIRRAASSHHFFOORR DD LL NN
VVIINNEEYYAARRDDSSBBLLVVDDTTRREEEELL IINNEE DD RR
PPEERRSSIIMMMM OO NN DDRR
TTIIBBUURROONNDDRR
WWEESSTT SS TT
111TH AVE N111TH AVE N110TH AVE N110TH AVE N109TH AVE N109TH AVE N108TH AVE N108TH AVE N
106TH AVE N106TH AVE N105TH AVE N105TH AVE N104TH AVE N104TH AVE N TARPON BAY BLVDTARPON BAY BLVD103RD AVE N103RD AVE N102ND AVE N102ND AVE N101ST AVE N101ST AVE N100TH AVE N100TH AVE N OOLL
DDEE
CC
YYPPRREESSSSDDRR99TH AVE N99TH AVE N98TH AVE N98TH AVE N97TH AVE N97TH AVE N96TH AVE N96TH AVE N95TH AVE N95TH AVE N94TH AVE N94TH AVE N93RD AVE N93RD AVE N92ND AVE N92ND AVE N
JOHNNYCAKE DRJOHNNYCAKE DR
91ST AVE N91ST AVE N
MADISON DRMADISON DR
CCRR EEEE KK SS IIDDEE BBLLVVDD PPHHOOEENNIIXX
WWAAYYMENTOR DRMENTOR DR
DDEELL AA SS OOLL
LLNNOLD 41OLD 41PPEE LLIICC AA NN BBAAYYBBLLVVDD BBRRYYNNWW OOOODDDDRR
BB AA YY LLAAUURREELLDDRRVANDERBILT BEACH RDVANDERBILT BEACH RD
GOLDEN OAKS LNGOLDEN OAKS LNWINTERVIEW DRWINTERVIEW DRPPOONNDDAAPPPPLLEEDDRREEENGLISH OAKS LNENGLISH OAKS LNPPOONNDDAAPPPPLLEEDDRRWWPPOONNDDAAPPPPLLEEDDRRSS
AUTUMN OAKS LNAUTUMN OAKS LN
HIDDEN OAKS LNHIDDEN OAKS LN
BUR OAKS LNBUR OAKS LN
SHADY OAKS LNSHADY OAKS LN
SPANISH OAKS LNSPANISH OAKS LN
STANDING OAKS LNSTANDING OAKS LNTHE LANETHE LANEOLDE CYPRESS BLVDOLDE CYPRESS BLVDTRAIL BLVDTRAIL BLVDBBRRAA
SS
SSIIEEBBNNDDCCYYPPRREESSSS TT
RR
AACCEECCIIRRHHIICCKKOORRYYRRDDNNOOTTTTIINNGGHHAAMMDDRR
AA RR BB OO RR BBLLVV
D
D
WW IIGGGGIINNSS PPAASSSS RRDD
7TH ST N7TH ST N8TH ST N8TH ST NMM IISS SSIIOO
NNDDRR HHII
GGHHCCRROOFFTT DDRR
TTIIBBUURR OO NN BBLLVVDD EECCYYPPRREESSSSWWAAYYEEPIPER BLVDPIPER BLVD VVAALLEEWWOOOODDDDRRVVIILLLLAAGGEE WW AA LLKK CCIIRR
NN
OORRTTHHBBRROOOOKKEEDDRRPPEELLIICCAANN MMAARRSSHHBBLLVVDD OAKES BLVDOAKES BLVDSSTTRRAANNDDBBLLVVDDGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NLLOOGGAANNBBLLVVDDNNLLIIVVIINNGGSSTTOONNRRDDIMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RD
JJUUNNGGLL
EETRLTRL
CCOOVVEECCIIRRBBAARR
CC
AA
RRMM
II
LLWWAAYY
BBOOCCAACCIIRR RREEGGEENNTTCCII RR
CC OOLLLLII EERRSSRREESS EERRVV
EE
DDRRWWIINNDDIINN GG OO AA KKSS
WW
AAYY
(/41 ;3EXIT111
§¨¦75
Gulf of Mexico
P O L E CROSS IN G RDS AN MARCOD R
OIL WELL RD
C O RK SCREW RD
EVERGLADES BLVD¿À951
¿À82
¿À858
¿À850
¿À837
¿À839
¿À846
¿À29
(/41
§¨¦75
C O L L IER
C O L L IER
H E N DRYH E N DRY
L E E
L E E
^^^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^^
^
^^
^
^
MIAMI
TAMPA
NAPLES
ORLANDO
KEY WEST
SARASOTA
PENSACOLA
FORT MYERS
VERO BEACH
LAKE PLACID
PANAMA CITY
GAINESVILLE
TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE
DAYTONA BEACH
FORT LAUDERDALE¶
PROJECT LOCATIONSEC 30, TWP 48 S, RNG 26 E
EXHIBIT 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP H.H.
A.W.
2/27/18
2/27/18SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL
69 of 80
EXHIBIT 2
AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS
70 of 80
4119E2
(2.57 Ac.±)
814
(0.44 Ac.±)
6259E3
(0.90 Ac.±)
4241
(2.15 Ac.±)
6219E2
(0.28 Ac.±)
6259E2
(2.15 Ac.±)
4241
(0.37 Ac.±)
4119E1
(0.49 Ac.±)J:\2018\18abb2815\2018\PSA\Exhibit 2 Aerial with FLUCFCS and wetlands Map.dwg Tab: 8X11-C TB Mar 08, 2018 - 11:28am Plotted by: DonBSCALE: 1" = 150'
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
REVISED
H.H.
A.W.
2/27/18
DATE
DATE
2/27/18
DATE
NOTES:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE
ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER
COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S
OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF
NOVEMBER 2016.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED
FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS
WEBSITE.
FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM
1"=200' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND
LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED.
FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE,
COVER AND FORMS
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
(FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999).
UPLAND/WETLAND LIMITS HAVE
NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY ANY
REGULATORY AGENCY AND ARE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
EXHIBIT 2. AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS
SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL
LEGEND:
SFWMD AND COE WETLANDS
(5.85 Ac.±)
71 of 80
EXHIBIT 3
GASPAR STATION PUD
SECONDARY WETLAND IMPACTS MAP
(From SFWMD Permit No. 11-02931-P, Application No. 070315-22)
72 of 80
73 of 80
EXHIBIT 4
SOILS MAP
74 of 80
COUGAR CT NCOUGAR CT N
COUGAR CT SCOUGAR CT S
EXPEDITION RDEXPEDITION RD
IMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RD
SANDRA BAY DRSANDRA BAY DR1111
1414
2121
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
EXHIBIT 4. SOILS MAP H.H.
A.W.
2/27/18
2/27/18SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL
0 75 150Feet
¶
LEGEND
PROJECT LOCATION
Soil Unit Description11 HALLANDALE FINE SAND14 PINEDA FINE SAND, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM21 BOCA FINE SAND
75 of 80
EXHIBIT 5
DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES
76 of 80
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
LEGEND
A
!(
#*
!H
!F
¶
EXHIBIT 5. DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES H.H.
A.W.
2/27/18
2/27/18SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
#*
#*
!H
!H
!H
!H !H
!H
!H
!H!H
!H !H
!H
!H
!H
!H !H
!H
!H
!H
!H
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
A
A
WESTBLVDCRAYTONRDGULFSHOREDRGOODLETTE RD EXTGOLDEN GATE BLVD
GREEN BLVDOAKS BLVDRIDGEDRLIVINGSTON RDLOGAN BLVDTERRY S T
GOODLETTEFRANKRDOLD US 41VANDERBILT DRAIRPORT-PULLINGRDBONITA BEACH RD
PINE RIDGE RD
VANDERBILT BEACH RD
¿À951
¿À846
(/41 §¨¦75
C O L L IERC O L L IER
L E E
L E E
PROJECT LOCATION
0 1 2Miles
77 of 80
EXHIBIT 6
FLORIDA WOOD STORK NESTING COLONIES AND
18.6 MILE CORE FORAGING AREAS
78 of 80
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
kj
Gulf of Mexico BECK BLVD
GREEN BLVDOAKS BLVDRI
DGEDRESTEYAV EGULFSHOREBL
VDLIVINGSTONRDOIL W E LL RD
LOGAN BLVDTHREEOAKSPKWYTERRY ST
CRAYTONRDRA TTLES NAK E HA M M OCK
RADIO RDVANDERBILT DRDAVIS BLVD
PINE RIDGE RDOLD US 41GOLDEN GA TE P K W YGOODLETTE FRANK RDESTERO BLVD
BONITA BEACH RD
VANDERBILT BEACH RD
GOLDEN GATE BLVDAIRPORT-PULLING RD¿À850
¿À849
¿À951
¿À846
(/41
§¨¦75
C O L L IERC O L L IER
L E EL E E
0 3 6Miles
¶
LEGEND
kj
EXHIBIT 6. FLORIDA WOOD STORK NESTING COLONIES T.F.
A.W.
3/7/18
3/7/18SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL
PROJECT LOCATION
AND 18.6 MILE CORE FORAGING AREAS 79 of 80
80 of 80
Finn
From:
Sent:
To:
FrantzJeremy
Thursday, August 22,2019 4:00 PM
FaulknerSue; FinnTimothy; BellowsRay; WeeksDavid; SmithCamden; baygenie@verizon.net
FW: Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 amendment PL20'19000045.Subject:
Jean,
I am rerouting your email to the planners working on these petitions
Respectfully,
Jeremy Frantz, AICP
Land Development Code Manager
From: Jean Auletta <baygenie@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 22,2079 3:43 PM
To: FinnTimothy <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gow; FrantzJeremy <Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 amendment PL2019OOOO45.
I am opposed to the planned unit development under PL 20190000451 amendment PL2OL9OOOO45
I recently closed on a unit in Livingston Lakes and look forward to moving to Naples in the near future. Since I am currently
living out of state, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the meeting August 22 to voice my opposition. I am deeply
concerned the property value of Livingston Lakes will be affected as well as the effect on our environment.
Regards,
Jean Auletta
15141 Palmer Lake Circle unit 203
Livingston Lakes
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
1
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
FinnTimoth v
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sally,
I am rerouting your email to the planners working on these petitions.
Respectfully,
Jeremy Frantz, AICP
Land Development Code Manager
FrantzJeremy
Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:50 PM
FinnTimothy; FaulknerSue; WeeksDavid; BellowsRay; SmithCamden; sjaulet5T@gmail.com
FW: Planned Unit Development under P120190000451, planned Amendment p120190000454
C,Rft,Qount!
Zonlng Divlsion
Exceedlng Expeclollons Everydoy
2800 N. Horieshoe Drlve, Noples, tlorido 34104
Phone: 23t.252.2305
www.colllercounh/f, .oov/ldcomendmenh
From: Sally Auletta <sjaulet5T@gma il.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:35 PM
To: FrantzJeremy <Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov>
Sublect: Planned Unit Development under P120190000451, Planned Amendment pL2O19OO0O454
To Jeremy,
I am writing as a concerned homeowner at Livingston
Lakes. We oppose the planned unit development under
P120190000451, planned amendment PL 20190000454.
We are referring to the 9 acre parcel recently purchased
by the Germain Automotive Group as a dealership. Too
much building is ruining our environment and waterways.
Building a dealership in our backyard will lower our
I
Tell us how we ore doing by toking our Zoning Division Survey of htto://bit.lvlcollierzonins
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
property values and will be aesthetically displeasing. AII
of this continual building is affecting the beautification of
the area and the charm of Naples itself.
We expect you will take our communities concerns into
consideration and not move forward with construction of
this project.
Thank you,
Sally Auletta & Bob George
151L4 Palmer Lake Circle, Unit 203
Naples, FL
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
2
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
FinnTimothy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
BellowsRay
Friday, August 23,2019 8:52 AM
FinnTimothy
FW: planned unit development
FYI
Rl
Roymond V. Bellows, Zoning Monoger
Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section
Growth Monogemenl Deportment
Telephone: 239 .252.2463: Fox: 239.252.6350
Exceeding expectotions, eYery doy!
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at httos://goo.gllexivoT.
From: Magdy Nashat <magdynashat@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 5:52 PM
To: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: planned unit development
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do nol want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
1
Dear Sir/Madam
As property owners at Livingston Lakes are opposing the change of the zoning from residential area to car
dealership which will have a negative effect on the value of our property.
Thanks
Amira and Magdy Nashat
15145 Palmer Lake Circle#203
Naples FL 34109
USA
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
August 20, 2019
Mr. Timothy Finn, AICP
Principal Planner
Zoning Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, FL 34104
Subject: PL 20190000451 and PL20190000454
Mr. Finn,
My wife and I are seasonal residents with a home at 15185 Butler Lake Drive in the Livingston
Lakes Development. We received the notice announcing the Neighborhood lnformation -
Meeting scheduled for August 22 regarding the land acquired by Germain Automotive Group.
Livingston Lakes is a residential development abutting the subject lot of land, and currenfly
enjoys the tranquil and esthetically pleasing natural habitat surrounding us. We object to i
rezoning allowing a commercial enterprise abutting residential development. lf the subject
property is rezoned and developed as a "car dealership and associated uses,' I can visualize
any number of gaudy sales promotion displays such as rotating search lights or miniature
tethered airships promoting automobile sales. I can also anticipate the noise of loud speakers
or announcing systems associated with an automobile repair or body shop. These activities
will, in all likelihood, reduce the desirability of Livingston Lakes as a residential community, as
well as the financial value of our existing investment. We would like a residential zoning of the
abutting land.
I am very interested to know what Germain will do with this property and what restrictions can
be placed on his development to protect the esthetic visual ambiance and investment made be
those of us within Livingston Lakes.
My wife and I are seasonal and will not be in resrdence until early December, so are not able to
attend the August 22 meeting.
Kelly & Elizabeth Walker
151 Traymore Lane
Rose Valley, PA 19063
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
FinnTimothy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jean Auletta < baygenie@verizon.net>
Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:43 PM
FinnTimothy; FrantzJeremy
Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 amendment p12019000045.
lam opposed to the planned unit development under pL 20190000451 amendment pL2o19oooo45.
I recently closed on a unit in Livingston Lakes and look forward to moving to Naples in the near future. Since I am currently
living out of state, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the meeting August 22 to voice my opposition. I am deeply
concerned the property value of Livingston Lakes will be affected as well as the effect on our environment.
Regards,
Jean Auletta
15141 Palmer Lake Circle unit 203
Livingston Lakes
1
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
August 20, 20'19
Mr Timothy Finn, AICP
Principal Planner
Zoning Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, FL 34104
Subject: PL 2019000045't and P[20'190000454
lvlr. Finn,
Kelly & Elizabeth Wdker
151 Traymore Lane
Rose Valley, PA 19063
My wife and I are seasonal residents with a home at 15185 Bu er Lake Drive in the Livingston
Lakes Development. We received the notice announcing the Neighborhood lnlormation-
Meetjng scheduled for August 22 regarding th€ land acquired byGermain Automotive Group.
Livingston Lakes is a residential development abutting the subject lot of land, and currenfly
enioys the tranquil and esthetically pleasing natural habitat surrounding us. We object to ;
rezoning allowing a commercial enterprise abuttjng residential development. lf the sub,ect
property is rezoned and developed as a "car dealership and associated uses', I can visualize
any number of gaudy sales promotion displays such as rotating search lights or miniature
tethered airships promoting automobile sales. I can also anticipate the noise of loud speakers
or announcing systems associated with an automobile repair or body shop. These activities
will, in all likelihood, reduce the desirability of Livingston Lakes as a residential community, as
well as the financial value of our existing investment. We would like a residential zoning of the
abutting land.
I am very anterested to know what Germain will do with this property and what reslrictions can
be placed on his development to protect the esthetic visual ambiance and investment made be
those of us wathin Livingston Lakes.
My wife and I are seasonal and will not be in residence until early December, so are not able to
attend the August 22 meeting.
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
My wife and I are seasonal residents with a home at 15185 Butler Lake Drive in the Livingston
Lakes Development. We received the notice announcing the Neighborhood lnformation-
Meeting scheduled for August 22 regarding the land acquired by Gormain Automotive Group.
Livingston Lakes is a residential development abutting the subject lot of land, and cunendy
enjoys the tranquil and esthetically pleasing natural habitat sunounding us. We obiect to a
rezoning allowing a commercial enterprise abutting resjdential development. It the subject
property is rezoned and developed as a "car dealership and associated uses" I can visualize
any number of gaudy sales promotion displays such as rotating search lights or miniature
tethered airships promoting automobile sales. I can also anticipate the noise of loud speakers
or announcing systems associated with an automobile repair or body shop. These activities
will, in all likelihood, reduce the desirability of Livingston Lakes as a residential community, as
well as the financial value of our existing investment. We would like a residential zoning of the
abutting land.
August 20, 2019
Mr Timothy Finn, AICP
Principal Planner
Zoning Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, FL 34104
Subject: PL 20190000451 and P120190000454
Mr. Finn,
I am very interested to know what Germain will do with this property and what restrictions can
be placed on his development to protect the esthetic visual ambiance and investment made be
those of us within Livingston Lakes.
My wife and I are seasonal and will not be in residence until early December, so are not able to
attend the August 22 meeting.
Kelly & Elizabeth Walker
151 Traymore Lane
Rose Valley, PA 19063
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
FinnTimothy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marian Wissa < marianwissa@gmail.com >
Wednesday, August 21, 2019 10:44 PM
FinnTimothy; Frantreremy; FaulknerSue; SmithCamden; WeeksDavid; BellowsRay
Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 planned amendment pLZol9OOOO454
Dear Sir/Madam:
We are writing in reference to the above and the relevant proposed rezoning.
As property owners at Livingston Lakes, please be informed that we, together with many, if not all neighbors, at
Livingston Lakes Community, are opposed to the above application. The approval of such application by Collier
County will have devastating consequences on residents of our community. As residents of Livingston Lakes
Community, our decision to purchase a place in this specific community was made with the knowledge that
the zoning of this area is all a residential one.
We are shocked to learn that an application was submitted to change the zoning from a quiet residential area
to include a car dealership, which will change the nature ofthe area to a commercial zone, and consequently
have negative effects on the lives of the residential community.
Thank you for your understanding and consideration,
Albert and Marian Wissa
#204-15126 Palmer Lake Circle
Naples, Florida
34109
marianwissatOomail.com
1
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
FinnTimothy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jennifer Euler <jedster1720@gmail.com>
Thursday, August 22, 2019 9:05 AM
FinnTimothy; FrantzJeremy; FaulknerSue; SmithCamden; BellowsRay; WeeksDavid
Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 planned amendment p120190000454
Good morning. I am a homeowner at Livingston Lakes. I received a letter regarding the rezoning for the property
aforementioned. I initially had very strong concerns regarding a car dealership being built on this property and then I
began thinking about what it could be instead - bar, restaurant, garbage bins, rats, loud music, etc. However, as my
home sits on the South side of Livingston Lakes, this dealership will abutt the property line near my home. My big
concern is the lightninB that usually accompanies a car dealership. I would respectfully ask that should you grant the
zoning change that the North area of the property remain as much preserve as possible and that the dealership be
regulated to no lighting in the back oftheir facility at night.
Thank you for considering my concerns when you make your decision on this property.
Respectfu lly,
Jennifer Euler
Ityou believe, allthings are possiblel
When we limit ourselvesto what is comfortable, we limit ourselvesto what as possible.... S.Vail
1
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
FinnTimothy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Timothy,
We expect you will take our communities concerns into consideration and
not move forward with construction of this project.
Thank you,
Sally Auletta & Bob George
I5tL4 Palmer Lake Circle, Unit 203
Naples, FL
1
I am writing as a concerned homeowner at Livingston Lakes. we oppose the
planned unit development under P120190000451, planned amendment
PL 20190000454.
We are referring to the 9 acre parcel recently purchased by the Germain
Automotive Group as a dealership. Too much building is ruining our
environment and waterways. Building a dealership in our backyard will
lower our property values and will be aesthetically displeasing. All of this
continual building is affecting the beautification of the area and the charm
of Naples itself.
Sally Auletta < sjauletsT@gmail.com >
Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:44 PM
FinnTimothy
Planned Unit Development under P120190000451, Planned Amendment pL2019OOOO454
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
FinnTimothy
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Doreen Zasa <dzasa256@yahoo.com >
Thursday, August 22,2019 l1:10 AM
Frant eremf FinnTimothy; FaulknerSue; Smithcamden; BellowsRay; WeeksDavid
doreen Zasa
REZONING
Good morning. I am a homeowner at Livingston Lakes. I received a letter regarding the rezoning for the property
aforementioned. I initially had very strong concerns regarding a car dealership being built on thii property and then I
began thinking about what it could be instead - bar, restaurant, garbage bins, rats, loud music, etc. l-iowever, as my home
sits on the South side of Livingston Lakes, this dealership will abutt the properly line near my home. My big concern is the
lightning that usually accompanies a car dealership. lwould respectfully ask that should you grant the ioning change that
the North area ofthe property remain as much preserve as possible and that the dealership be regulated lo no lighting in
the back of their facility at night.
Thank you for considering my concerns when you make your decision on this property.
Respectfully,
DOREEN ZASA
1
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
\,l
f
j
o
<2
C9
)x
r::i
In
i)l
rti
It:t
'iii
r:l
(r
->t
2
L
t
Jo
'L
,)j
$o
L
1,
xv
d
f,Iflz. F^t4, -:,6?ts;
l.IJ 'r - qJ=Olf
to_
,Td l"'6
'L-
o
lu
*
9Jv2oae,
d-\
,)
5
u'6
Ra
AEe?l*
F i..aili,
)
- l*
)tt
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
COLLIER COUNTY
Growth Management Department
March 13,2020
Dear Property owner: This is to advise you_that because you may hav-e.interest jn the proceedings or you own properlylocated within 500 feet (urban areas) or 1,000 feet (rural aieas) oi.the^ following de."rioi,o piop"ril thai a pubtic'hearin!will be held bv the collier county
^Planning Commission at 9:oo AM., on-Aprll oz,
-zfi6,-i,i 'tt'" eoiro ot Corniicommissioners meeting room, third floor, collier Government cenGliT-zss Easr ramiamirrait, i.taples, FL., to consider:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDINGORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEI\,iENT PLAN FOR THEUNINCORPORATED AREA oF c-oLLtER couNTy, FLoRTDA, spEctFrcALLy ArraeruoiruoiiE ruruRE LANo usEELEMENT AND MAP SERIES BY AMENDING THE URBAN COMMERCTAL DtSTRtCi rO aOo THE GERMATNIMMOKALEE COI\,4MERCIAL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 8O,OOO SOUNNE FEET OF C-1,COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL AND GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT AND LUXURy AUTOT\,1-OettE DeaLenSHrp USeS.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ls LocATED oN THE sourH srDE oF tMMoKAtEE RoAD, Ap-iRoxrMATELy .6 MttESWEST OF I-75, IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, rLONION, CONSISTINGoF 8.97r ACRES. P120.190000454
You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing. You may also submit your comments in writing.
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE TIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAKoN BEHALF oF AN oRGANtzATroN oR GRoup ARE ENCouRAGED AND MAy ee A_Lor-rEo 10 MTNUTES ToSPEAK oN AN lrEM lF so RECoGNtzED By rHE cHATRMAN. pERSoNS wtsHtNG To HtviwRtrrEN oR GRApHtcMATERIALS INCLUDEO IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF ,10 DAYSPRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BEcoNSIDERED BY THE ccPc sHALL BE suBMrrrED To rHE couNTy srAFF MEMBER NoiEo eelow, n urrutuul,tOF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPCWILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THEBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the collier county Planning commission will need a record of theproceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatinirecord of the proceedings is made, whichrecord includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
lf you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are anti(ed,at no cost to you, to the provislon of certain assistance. Please contait the bollier County Faciliiili naanagemenlDepartmenl, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 1Ol, Naples, FL 34112-5g56, (239) 2S,-S3BO, at teast twlo daysprior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in ihe Board of County Commissione?sOffice.
This petition, and other pertinent information related to this petition, is kept on file and may be reviewed at the GrowthManagement Department building located at 28oo North Horseshoe Drive, ilaples, Florida 34i 04. please contact the staffmember noted below at (239)-252-5715 to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file.
sincerery, -T- CLr\ fLots r..__ k.r Oc OFc._
Sup 1aulhnarl
Sue Faulkner,
Principal Planner
Sue.Faulkner@colliercountyfl .gov
d \t-cs\^-i
Lh a:
LO-
e- \ r..--
C
frtcno\a-'.,\
q-a,r'to---'e--
t-{9 60 I)'e-
.g"t-
o h\-.
r <-\d_De--f
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
FinnTimothy
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
F ra ntzJ eremy
Wednesday, )uly 8,20?0 4:26 PM
CHARLES BERRY; FinnTimothy; FaulknerSue
sjaulet5T@gmail.com; baygenie@verizon.net joe@capriandassociates.com;
carolhandler@yahoo.com; mumford 1077@centurylink.neq marianwissa@gmail.com;
dzasaz56@yahoo.com; BellowsRay; JenkinsAnita
RE: P120 1 90000451, P1201 90000454
Hi Charles,
Tim Finn and Sue Faulkner (included on this email) are the planners assigned to these petitions. They will note your
objection and can answer any questions you may have about the petition.
Respectfully,
Jeremy Frantz, AICP
Land Development Code Manager
C,Rff"County:r
Zoning Division
Exceeding Expecrorio ns Evet fdoy
Tell us how we dre doing by toking our Zoning Division Suruey ot http://bit.lvlcollierZoninq
From: CHARLES BERRY <legrandfromage@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 3:55 PM
Tor FrantzJeremy <Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov>; sjaulet5T@gmail.com; baygenie@verizon.net;
joe@capriandassociates.com; carolhandler@yahoo.com; mumford1077@centurylink.net; marianwissa @gmail.com;
dzasa256@yahoo.com
Subiect: P120190000451, P120190000454
This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when
openinB attachments or clicking links.
Jeremy:
The sign on the property under these numbers advises of a meeting to be held August 20, 2020. The
placement of this sign parallel to lmmokalee Road renders it impossible to read due to traffic speed
and density.
2800 N. HoEerhoe Ddve, Nopler. floddq 31104
Phone: 239.252.23()g
www.colllercounMl.qov/ldcomendmenlt
I am a resident at Bermuda Palms on lmmokalee Road just West of this proposed development.
1
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
It is this speed and density which which is one reason for my message to object to this
development. Entering lmmokalee Road traffic from Bermuda Palms is required to turn right (East)
on lmmokalee. The volume of traffic going East on lmmokalee is great making the entrance from
Bermuda Palms hazardous. As soon as it is stopped by the traffic signal at Livingston, the Livingston
road right turn on lmmokalee springs into action, very frequently so quickly that traffic entering
lmmokalee from Bermuda Palms is severly inhibited, again.
To turn West one must make a U-turn al Juliel Boulevard, from a turn lane that is frequently backed
up down lmmokalee West, inhibiting traffic from crossing three lanes to the U-turn lane.
Peak traffic times make this procedure very risky. There are 80 units in Bermuda Palms, presuming
perhaps 160 vehicles. Add to this vehicles exiting the complex to our West (Vvindsong), then add
whatever traffic will be exiting from the proposed new development PL20190000451,
P120190000454, plus traffic from another proposed development immediately to the West of the
Germain property, under PL20190001600 for 260 proposed residential units (Blue Coral) gets this to
the point where frequent traffic back-ups and accidents will occur.
I object to this development as being objectionable from just a traffic standpoint.
The affected area is currently 'preserve'which would disappear under the proposed
project. Disturbing this, and the wetlands there as well will further reduce the uninhabited area with
displacement of all wildlife and increase in 'urban sprawl'we find objectionable.
I vote no' on approval of this project.
Charles Berry
239 595 1 840
Bermuda Palms
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do not want your e-mail address released ln resoonse to a
public records request. do nol send eiectronic mail to this entity lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in writhg.
2
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
FinnTimothy
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
FaulknerSue
Sunday, August 16,2020 3:49 PM
Tom Barber
FinnTimothy
FW: P1201 900045 1 ; P1201 9000454 lmmokalee Germain project
Hi Tom,
I received this oppositional email (below) over the weekend. I have uploaded to Cityview and to the CCPC agenda
software (which the Commission members use).
l0,"r 9,4."a$
5,* $"rrfrr".," grhdf"l gLr, ..
Collier County Growth Management Department
Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
Sue.Fa u lkner@c lliercountvfl.sov
phone: 239-252-57 75; E-fax: 239-252-2838
From: CHARLES BERRY <legrandfromage@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 1L:43 AM
To: FaulknerSue <Sue. Faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov>; Diane Doherty <dianedoherty@ me.com>; deb@abilityteam.com;
sjaulet5T@gmail.com; baygenie@verizon.net; joe@capriandassociates.com; ca rolhandler@yahoo.com;
mumford 1077@centurylin k.net; maria nwissa @gmail.com; dzasa255@ya hoo.com; Jo-Anne Sergeant
<jol lyjojoS@ya hoo.co m>
subiecr: P12019000451; P12019000454
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when
opening attachments or clicking links.
Re
Planning Commission Meeting Aug. 20, 2020 is to review staff recommendations on these projects
1
Website: www.colliercountvf l.gov
Colliet Counv Motto: '"To exceed expedations."
Tell us how we ore doing by toking our Zoning Division SuNey ot http://bit.lvlcollierzonine
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
The undersigned represents himself and wife (Jo-Anne Sergeant) as residents of Bermuda Palms,
located West of the proposed development.
we object to the use of rHE LAST PIECE oF UNDEVELOPED PRESERVE BEWTEEN RourE 41
AND l-75, in the lmmokalee corridor on the west side, for the construction of a luxury car
dealership.
Car Dealerships can be located anywhere that zoning permits or can be changed to
permit. Commercial development continues to creep up on us and the approval of this petition will fu
rther favor the acceptability of P12019000'1600 and PL201 900620 current ly proposed which would
add 280 dwelling units and finally obliterate the preserve property cited above. The Germain
organization seems not to have been forthcoming about identifying the brand they intend to install at
this location, if approved. The significant Luxury brands generally recognized by consumers are
currently all represented in the Naples area with established locations. Germain has 6 locations that I
can identify in Collier County. What do they want to build???
Staff studies indicate no significant impact on traffic or noise levels from this proposal. Studies are
based on legislated descriptions or quotas for traffic flows. They seem not to address reality, but we
would recommend that actual observation of East and West traffic flows on lmmokalee might change
the perception. We live basically on a 'drag strip', subjected to heavy truck traffic, commuter traffic
and controlled by lights at Livingston Road and Juliette Boulevard. Noise levels from aggressively
muffled or unmuffled vehicles under heavy acceleration from the light at Livingston and lmmokalee
make outside activity unpleasant. We usually wait 2 cycles to turn South on Livingston for the Uturn
necessary for us when approaching from the East. Sometimes 3 cycles. Traffic on the Northerly on-
ramp to l-75 frequently backs up into lmmokalee Road East. Traffic Northerly on Livingston turning
right at lmmokalee frequently endures several light changes at that intersection before turning
East. Reality needs to be observed, rather than being done with a 'slide rule'.
Our objection is not based only on traffic flows or permitted uses, it is based on continued reduction in
personal space, increased noise and the thought that this dealership could be located almost
anywhere to the East.
"The applicant submitted a market study analysis that states demand for luxury cars is increasing
(along with the population of Collier County) and that locating a luxury car dealership close to 175 and
closer to the growing populations east of Collier Blvd. (CR 951 ) helps meet this increasing
demand. (Quotation from staff report of April 2,2020)
Being a licensed real estate agent in Collier County for nearly 20 years had led me to believe the
demand for 'luxury' cars is driven by the same people that demand 'luxury' homes. These are not in
general, East of l-75, in my experience.
Please make an effort to preserve our last little bastion of preserve rather than yield to the big
business interests who desire to remove
the last of our small remaining peaceful existence.
Charles Berry
Jo-Anne Sergeant
239 5951840
2
Very truly yours,
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
4910 Cougar Court
Bermuda Palms
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records" lf you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in writing"
3
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
COMMENTS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO THE GERMAIN IMMOKALEE
COMMERICAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN NAPLES, FLORIDA
FOR PRESENTATION TO THE COLLIER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OCTOBER 13, 2020
The proposed Germain Immokalee luxury car dealership and associated projects
and properties are of great concern. The proposal addresses more than the
dealership alone; it involves the adjacent commercial development to the east
together with a proposed dense housing development, possible retail/restaurant
strip inside that development, and the existing private development of Bermuda
Palms to the west. The intertwined layout, scope, and ultimate plan for all of the
above need to be spelled out clearly before a credible project review and analysis
can be done. The proposal raises key questions about the environment and safety.
These are some of those concerns.
TRAFFIC: As described, the dealership alone could be allowed 166 two-way PM
peak hour trips. Does this mean that 332 trips would be allowed? Would this
allowable increase come during rush hour or throughout the day? What about
traffic from the associated projects? If the right-of-way is agreed to, could it be
given to another group or groups? This arrangement would open a Pandora’s box.
Access and traffic impacts need to be worked out upfront and on the record.
What is the total commercial and residential buildup contemplated? Does the
applicant have agreement to relocate access points to nearby areas, as discussed –
through Bermuda Palms, the 80-unit development built in 2004 to the west; the
abutting 280-unit housing project being proposed immediately to the west, and the
existing commercial uses on Useppa Way and Juliet Boulevard to the east? Is there
approval for the retail/restaurant strip being discussed for location on Immokalee
on the same property as the housing complex? Are other access points possible?
The combined commercial and residential uses have different purposes and would
conflict. The public needs to see these agreements, if and when they exist, and have
the right of review and approval.
Safety would be a major concern. What roadways would be built and where would
the actual turning points be? What is the plan for safe use by pedestrians, with and
without these conceptual access points? How would the resulting traffic on and
near Immokalee Road affect the level of service as well as road safety and accident
rates? What are the landscape plans, including for signage, sidewalks, aesthetics,
truck traffic, and construction vehicles? Would there be a new traffic light? Would
pedestrian crossings be changed and, if so, how? How would bicycle riders be
affected? What effect would these plans have, both with and without the alternative
access points, on the ability of Bermuda Palms to enjoy its property safely?
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
-2-
A detailed map showing all possible participants, properties, access points,
roadways, and their effect on traffic and pedestrians needs to be made available to
the public for review before a final decision is made.
ENVIRONMENT: Using nearly nine acres of land now classified as rural for an auto
dealership would make a major change to the landscape, raising numerous concerns
about water quality and other environmental issues.
As proposed, the project would eliminate approximately 3.9 acres of wetlands on
the 9.87-acre property. Has the applicant obtained any necessary local, state, and
federal permits, including an Individual Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers?
Such permits, when and if issued, need to be made available to the pubic for review
and comment. Were measures considered to avoid removing these wetlands? What
would the resulting drainage be – in terms of volume and pollutant content? What
mitigation measures would be used to limit the contaminants and ensure that the
water volume and related rate of discharge do not leave the site with a larger
volume or higher rate of discharge post-construction than pre-construction? What
mitigation measures would be used to offset this taking of wetlands?
What effect would the project have on animal and plant habitat and how satisfactory
would it be to have migration limited to three parcels of land on three separate
properties, as envisioned? Are there endangered flora and fauna that need federal
and state review and regulation? Where does that stand?
Light pollution from a dealership about 0.6 miles from I-75 would be significant.
What measures would be taken to lessen the impact on the whole area of this part of
Immokalee Road, not just the residential development to the south? What
alternatives were considered? Would there be lit signs on Bermuda Palms, the
retail/restaurant strip, the housing development, and the possible entrance onto
Useppa Way?
EFFECTS ON/FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTY: The Germain Immokalee project
comes in the context of a proposal for the 280-unit housing development -- Blue
Coral Apartments -- along with a possible retail/restaurant strip there, and
Bermuda Palms. Blue Coral Apartments would be comprised of two residential
buildings and a large parking garage, unusual for a residential development. It is
through all these developments that the auto dealership would have traffic flow.
What would the effect be on the safety of Blue Coral Apartments residents and their
ability to enjoy their property? Who would be liable for maintenance, accidents, and
future capital replacement costs?
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
-3-
How would the retail/restaurant strip being discussed affect traffic, parking, and
safety? Does the planning consider the joint impacts of the dealership, the housing
development, and the possible retail/restaurant strip inside it?
A detailed site map needs to be made available showing planned roadways,
including internal ones, as well as turns and specific landscape, lighting, and signage
components, and all the above questions need to be fully answered in a timely
manner before a decision is made.
The proposed Germain Immokalee dealership, together with the associated projects,
is unacceptable. The plan is clearly murky and needs definition. Its layout, scope,
and ultimate plan including those with the associated properties need to be spelled
out before a credible program review and analysis can be done. Should the Board
approve this project? The answer is: No.
Linda Durkee
An Owner and Resident
Bermuda Palms
Naples, FL
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
9.C.6Packet Pg. 180Attachment: Attachment E - Waiver Applicant for hybrid quasi-judicial hearing- Germain Immokalee Rd (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD
SIGN POSTTNG INSTRUCTIONS
(CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COTINTY ADMINISTRATTVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT)
A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of lifteen (15) calendar
days in advance of the frst public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agenr through
thc Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not
bc construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative
Code, Chapter E E.
l. 1-he sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not mor€ than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or
easement.
2. The sign(s) must be securely affrxed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened
securely to a post, or other sfucture. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage.3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action
has been heard and a final decision rendered. Ifthe sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the
petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s
NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE
RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (IO) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST ITEARINC DATE TO THE
ASSIGNED PLANNER.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COLNTY OF COLLIER
BEFORE TTM UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONAILY APPEARED
WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/STM HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE A s REQUIRED By SECTTON 10.03,00 OF TI{E
COLI-IER COI-,INTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON TIIE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER
l4odIrill 8["J f
TURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX
NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED)
{
SI'ATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
lon 0*. Lun /Vn 15 trL 31 tog
of---\-rrl:^z 20ZD,byI
identification
4
STA
The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me
4m BarL+ v- .personally knoun to me or who
and who did/did not take an oath.
My Commission Expires:
(Stamp with serial number)
Notary
4
,,,trrt NotrvPudEEt EcrFdr(Ii{i ards"*tJ*f, ErPaIltO:lrlO'2UIs
Rev.31412015
otary
e/7 *7
L
9.C.7
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment F - Property Hearing Sign (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
.l
*
:.
i/'
{!i
I
I
N'
,.t
I
i
I;ii I
t
I
r
I
fr
,t
'-t
I
/'I
I
t ri
a
t1
I
!
i. \€, ,\
,l
r.q
.l'
I
I'i
i
;1
,,
+l
.. t,
I
.;
'1--.,:
tl:
I
{
T
t I'a
,i"il
.a \
lr'I
,r
,l:
I t.
.trl
o
GERMAIN ITUIM OKATEE COMMEBCIAT SU DIST ICT GMPA
P eti tion No. PL-2019000045
GEBM AIN IMMOKALEE CPUD
Petition No- PL-2019 0 00451
9:00 a-m.CGPC: AUG usr 20, 2020
BGG:Octo ber 13, 2O2O 9:00 a.m.
Center, William H. Tur er Bldg.,Gollier CountY Gov ernment n
iTr il East, NaPles, F L 34112Third Floor,3299 Tamia m a
I Planner: 239-252-5715 t/Sue Faulkner, PrinciPa
239-252-4312TimFinn, AIGP, PrinciPa l.Planner:
rl
I
I
aI
I
.,vNt\\
II
i
..:
?
:
l-
9.C.7
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment F - Property Hearing Sign (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))
9.C.8
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: legal ad - companion items 13442 & 11805 (11805 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))